Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

On Aug. 4, 2020, thousands of tons of haphazardly stored ammonium nitrate exploded in the port of Beirut. Upwards of 200 people were killed, and 7,000 people were wounded. 300,000 people were displaced, and 80,000 children were left homeless. 77 apartments were destroyed. In addition to the catastrophic human impact, the grain silos at the port, which absorbed most of the explosion’s impact, were heavily damaged. Stripped to their core, crumbling from the inside, but still standing, these grain silos came to symbolize the pain, destruction and aftermath of the explosion. 

On Aug. 4, 2022, exactly two years after the destruction, several of those wheat silos finally collapsed, paralleling the ongoing situation in Lebanon. 

The almost complete lack of reformative action from the political system has greatly distressed Lebanon’s people. The aftermath of the explosion shuttered half of Beirut’s healthcare centers, afflicted 163 private and public schools and impacted 56% of private businesses in Beirut. Damages are estimated to cost $10-$15 billion. 

This is even more disheartening given that Lebanon is also currently embroiled in what is estimated to be one of the most devastating economic collapses worldwide since the 1850s. 

Lebanon is experiencing record rates of poverty, unemployment and a rapid decline in education and quality of living. Today, 82% of the population lives in multidimensional poverty, 33% of households cannot access healthcare and 50% cannot access medicines; child labor is on the rise, and 30% of youths aged 15-25 have dropped out of formal education. Unemployment has soared to at least 30%. The collapse of the Lebanese pound — which has lost 90% of its value since Oct. 19 — has eroded people’s ability to access basic needs. 

Yet, as the country collapses, the political elite remain unperturbed. There still has been no formal apology or acknowledgment of responsibility from the government regarding the explosion. None of Lebanon’s senior officials have met with the victims’ families. While tens of thousands of volunteers took to the streets immediately after the explosion, sweeping glass and blood with their personal brooms, there was reportedly little to no support from authorities to aid recovery and rebuilding. 

The official response to the ongoing domestic situation has been equally unsatisfactory. The government has provided practically no relief or aid amid an economic crisis. The budget Lebanon’s parliament recently passed on Sept. 26, 2022, also falls short of the thresholds set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF had urged Lebanon to use a U.S. dollar-to-Lebanese pound exchange rate in the budget close to the current market rate that traders and sellers use. Instead, the budget used an officially set rate twice as strong as the reality of the Lebanese pound. Accordingly, the money the budget allocates for the crippled public sector will still be far below the necessary threshold, breaking a crucial agreement with the IMF. The withdrawal of support from the IMF strips away even more hope for a meaningful loan to rectify the situation.     

This governmental incompetence and negligence show little sign of being remedied. The domestic judicial investigation into the explosion has thus far been fruitless. The primary judge assigned to the case brought charges against four people and was promptly removed from the investigation when two of the four people, former ministers of the country, complained about bias. The current judge, Judge Tarek Bitar, faced massive resistance from government officials, who evaded questioning and prosecution in multiple ways. Consequently, his work has been suspended. The courts set to rule on complaints brought against the judge are on hiatus. 

Ergo, the investigation in its entirety has come to a screeching halt. Internationally, the call by UN experts for an investigation into the explosion has yet to receive a response from the Human Rights Council.

What comes next for Lebanon is unclear. With official corruption and negligence so systematically rooted, massive reform is necessary to shift the course of the country’s future. 

Yet, moderate improvements seen in the latest parliamentary elections held in May 2022 may indicate ongoing destruction is not necessarily inevitable. Voters elected 13 independent candidates to the parliament — 10% of the total. In 2018, only one independent member resided in parliament. This moderate increase is significant in a country where the kleptocratic elites have established a sectarian system that institutionalizes religious and ethnic divides. This system allows the elite to use fear-mongering and divisive propaganda to their advantage to remain in power and suppress independents from positions of authority. So small ripples of change, which could gradually shift cultural and social conditioning, are the more likely path to genuine amelioration of the crisis. 

However, while that potential change gradually actualizes, the families of the Beirut port explosion victims still remain without closure or justice to heal their wounds as the future of those grain silos continues collapsing around them. 

While the government had previously promised to memorialize the silos, they changed course in April 2022 and ordered their demolition. Reasons for this decision included the cost of rebuilding and the potential danger of more silos collapsing; protests immediately followed from families of victims, activists and civic groups. Those protests continue today, with citizens demanding that the last remaining silos maintain their position as historic and necessary monuments. 

Mirielle Khoury lost her 15-year-old son, Elias, in the explosion. On Aug. 4, 2022, as the silos burned behind her, she yelled at a protest for all to hear, “We want to know the truth. It’s our right to know those who are responsible for this horrendous crime are held accountable! … It was the right of my son and all the victims to live, and to be safe.” 

Mirielle then had the crowd join her in a communal promise, “​​I swear by their pure blood, by the tears of mothers and siblings and fathers and children and elders that we will not despair, we will not acquiesce, we will not comply, we will not retreat, we will not indulge, we will not underestimate. We are here, and here we will stay until the end of time.”

The Kafala System is a migrant worker sponsorship system that enables indentured working and slavery. It originated in the Gulf Region and is practiced throughout the Middle East. Under the system, a national citizen can act as a sponsor, or kafeel, to a migrant worker, tying the worker’s legal right to live and work in the country to their employer. As such, if an employer decides to fire the worker, they can be detained and deported if their recruitment agency does not connect them to another sponsor. If the worker wishes to quit, they do not have the freedom to do so without the explicit approval of their employer. Employers have the right to confiscate and retain their worker’s passports, so if a worker is desperate to quit or leave the country, they are trapped if the employer will not return their documentation. Domestic workers are guaranteed no basic labor rights under the Kafala system — no guaranteed day off, no set working hours, no freedom to terminate a contract, no social security, no compensation for unfair termination, no parental leave and not even a minimum wage.

Recruitment agencies in Lebanon prey upon the most vulnerable In the world, advertising to the impoverished in countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines. They make grandiose promises of a dreamland where workers will be paid in US dollars for easy work; often, contracts are written in Arabic, and the recruited workers who typically do not know the language must sign them before entering the country. Once they arrive in Beirut, the reality of the system they have tied themselves to becomes evident when they are not allowed to even leave the airport without their employer picking them up.

The system is resultingly rife with exploitation, abuse, and in the worst cases, modern-day slavery. Many civil cases have been brought against employers by migrant workers who never received full or any payment for their work. Many more have come forward exposing experiences of being psychologically, verbally, physically, and sexually abused. Some were fully enslaved or trafficked. On average, two domestic workers die per week in Lebanon, often trying to escape or by suicide, although their deaths are rarely properly investigated. Now, with the snowball of crises suffocating Lebanon, domestic workers are more neglected than ever. Thousands have been abandoned at the doors of their respective country’s embassies as their employers can no longer afford to pay them. Many of these essential workers constantly exposed to COVID-19 were left behind in Lebanon’s stunted rollout of vaccinations during the pandemic. According to Freedom United, 400,000 migrant workers in Lebanon are currently at significant risk for exploitation.

Yet, a groundbreaking case brought to Lebanon’s criminal court can potentially change the culture and even legality of the inherently abusive system. Meseret Hailu Deneke arrived in Lebanon from Ethiopia in 2012, looking to support her struggling family. What followed, she claims, was eight years of abuse, torture, and enslavement by her employer May Saadeh. Meseret, who previously went by the moniker MH in court documents, was permanently locked into her employer’s residence. She was forced to work around 15 hours a day, seven days a week, without days off or holidays. She was prohibited from contacting anyone in the outside world. When she would ask to talk to her family, Saadeh reporteadly told her, “Wait for them to remember they have a daughter to check on.”  Saadeh also allegedly failed to pay Meseret the majority of her guaranteed earnings, and when Meseret would ask for her fair compensation, Saadeh would verbally or physically abuse her.

After years of no contact, Mesret’s worried family in Ethiopia was finally able to contact the volunteer organization, This is Lebanon, run by activists and former migrant workers, which then referred Meseret’s family to Legal Action Worldwide (LAW). LAW contacted Saadeh, demanding she release Meseret, and two weeks later, Meseret was finally allowed to return home, but with no money.  

According to domestic and international law, LAW is now arguing a groundbreaking case against Saadeh on behalf of Meseret, accusing her former employer of slavery, human trafficking, and racial and gender discrimination. While migrant workers have brought up civil cases related to unpaid compensation in Lebanon before, as mentioned previously, this is the first case brought to criminal court following decades of this unjust system being practiced.

If Meseret proves successful, this case has significant legal implications for the Kafala system in Lebanon and the Middle East and Gulf regions. A win for the plaintiff would mean that thousands of other domestic workers subjected to similar abuses under the system would be more empowered and validated in speaking out. It would cast a new cultural light upon the system and force countries to reconsider their labor laws about domestic workers. Meseret’s lawsuit has the potential to facially challenge the Kafala System as a whole on top of granting herself justice.

However, nothing is certain in a country where migrant workers’ rights have historically been neglected and in which corruption runs rampant. In 2020, for example, Lebanon’s Labor Ministry made efforts to guarantee some basic labor rights to domestic workers. This effort made it to the highest administrative court until the government ultimately ruled in favor of the Syndicate of the Owners of Recruitment Agencies in Lebanon, which had challenged the proposed policy. After all, the Kafala System helps ensure a vital source of income in an important industry. Lebanese recruitment agencies netted $57.5 million in 2019 alone from recruitment fees. The government took multimillion-dollar cuts for administrative fees, which is no small number for the third-highest indebted country in the world. Furthermore, the Kafala System benefits the Lebanese government, which “provides” severely deficient social services. Through Kafala, the government can cheaply and easily transfer its responsibilities to migrant workers, who largely clean its streets and care for its elderly.

Yet, Meheret’s bravery and determination in carrying the case forward — even as Saadeh refused to show up to the first preliminary hearing — demands hope and optimism for the future. Meheret’s lawyer believes justice will be served and that the case will “open the door” for the inhumane and unjust Kafala System to be “abolished.” As Meheret said, she wants to ensure her “nightmare” experience is no longer possible or normalized. More than compensation, Meheret is seeking justice so that her case “could serve as a warning to all abusers that their crimes will catch up to them one day.”

In mid-August, the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced a peace deal, disrupting the status quo in the Middle East. The deal called for the normalization of relations between the two countries, in addition to the halting of any Israeli annexation plans of the West Bank. Outlined below are the political and economic benefits that can be expected as a result of the peace deal/ 

Economic Benefits

First and foremost, the deal is expected to have tremendous economic benefits, as it paves the way for new financial investments in both countries. The hope is to stimulate both economies, which are reeling from pandemic-related shocks, and address an urgent need for economic restructuring in the Arab Gulf, which is notorious for its dependence on the oil trade. The economic stimulus from the deal is especially critical to revamping Israel’s economy, given that, in the second quarter of 2020, Israel’s GDP contracted by 8.1% and the unemployment rate reached levels not seen since 2016. 

Previously, all business between Israel and the UAE was done under the table, meaning that financial transactions were diverted through third parties, and communication was made through overseas cell numbers and VPNs. Despite these hurdles, Israeli trade with the Gulf Cooperation Council is estimated to be about $1 billion. This economic activity overshadows Israel’s trade with the other Israeli-friendly Arab states, with trade revenues with Egypt and Jordan numbering $500 million and $160 million, respectively. 

Within weeks of the peace deal, Israeli venture capital firms have been fielding calls from both sides about investment opportunities, Emirati billionaires have set up direct flights between the two countries, and some Israeli tech firms are shifting their sales strategies from East Asia to the newly opened Emirati market. The Israeli technology sector seems to be of particular interest to Emirati investors, who have been facing unfavorable domestic markets. As the UAE starts to shift away from oil dependency, Israeli tech provides a gateway into diverse investment portfolios, while generating revenue for the Jewish-majority state. 

Political and Diplomatic Gains 

There are clear political advantages for both parties. The peace deal created a positive media storm for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Emirati counterpart, President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (KZN). Netanyahu especially needed this boost. Since 2016, Netanyahu has faced legal investigations for various allegations, including accepting gifts worth over $1 million, offering to diminish the circulation of a newspaper’s rival if their competitor granted him favorable coverage, and the misuse of public funds by his wife. 

While he has been battling accusations of corruption, the Israeli PM has also faced criticism for his handling of the coronavirus. In the early days of the pandemic, Israel seemed to be ahead of the game in its containment of the virus. However, it wasn’t long after the Prime Minister called for Israelis to “have fun” that the virus truly devastated Israel. As of now, over 200,000 Israelis have had confirmed cases of the virus, and less than a third of Israelis are happy with the way Netenyahu has handled COVID-19, according to a poll conducted by the Guttman Center for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy.

The deal is expected to boost Netanyahu’s international status in addition to his domestic popularity, which is critical given that his recent foreign policy moves have been damaging for Israel’s international reputation. Most recently, the prime minister’s plans to annex the West Bank drew widespread international criticism, with the European Union even threatening to suspend Israel’s preferential trade agreement. Israel’s deal with the UAE helps mitigate Europe’s critique of its foreign policy with positive global coverage of a significant diplomatic accomplishment.

For the UAE, the deal helps shift the conversation away from the country’s involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and toward the country’s geopolitical importance and progress. Since 2015, news covering the UAE has been largely dominated by its role in the chaos in Yemen. In 2015, the UAE and Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen to fight against the Houthi rebels, proxy fighters supported by Iran. The UAE contributed over 5,000 members of its own troops, trained 90,000 Yemeni soldiers, distributed billions of dollars and provided weapons. After five years of fighting, Yemen has been left with one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises: more than 1 million displaced and over 2 million children malnourished, with 400,000 of them in critical condition. 

Emirati president, His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (KZN), was left to assume responsibility for the carnage in this proxy war. Recently, KZN has shifted his foreign policy focus in Yemen to one of retreat. Since last summer, the UAE has been pulling forces out of the conflict and sending them back home. The purpose of this move has been to solidify a domestic defense against Iran, and to pull the UAE out of a war that has been costly and detrimental to its international reputation. The recent peace deal works alongside this important move in two ways. First, it helps to shift the international headlines regarding UAE from one of a warmonger with accusations of violating human rights to an image of a cooperative peacemaker. Secondly, creating a cooperative relationship with Israel helps to strengthen possible military ties against Iran, a common adversary.

Israel and the UAE’s shared animosity toward Iran was an important part of the peace deal.  

Israel, under constant threat from Iran, is accustomed to both fighting Iranian proxy wars and confronting the state directly. On the Lebanese border and in Syria, Israel has faced off against Hezbollah, an Iranian ally based in Lebanon. When it comes to deterring Iran, Israel has leaned on its technological advantage. The nation’s most famous example of its technical prowess is it’s malware Stuxnet,  which was created with the purpose of destabilizing Iranian nuclear facilities. 

With the peace deal in place, the door may be opening for Israel and the UAE to support each others’ military goals and collaborate on intelligence. Already, the UAE is looking to purchase American F-35 stealth fighter jets, a task that would have been impossible if the state did not recognize Israel. 

Looking Ahead

So, what are the future implications of this deal for the region’s stability? In the near future, Gulf states — notably Saudi Arabia — may be incentivized to also formalize relations with Israel, should the economic and security benefits of doing so become undeniable. Additionally, a positive relationship between the UAE and Israel could lead to increased military and business ties between Arab Gulf states and Israel. Already Bahrain, another member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, announced its intent to normalize ties with Israel.

The strength of this budding alliance depends on the ability of Middle Eastern states to place aside past tensions and fully support the success of their regional neighbors. If Israel becomes skeptical of improved Arab militaries, or Arab states start to circumvent Israel, cracks in the alliance will form. There is also the possibility of a Thucydides Trap for Iran, which could see the Arab-Israeli alliance growing stronger and decide to take action before its opponents gain an upper hand. Increased Iranian aggression is particularly dangerous for the region given the state’s alliances with armed rebel groups in several Middle Eastern countries. Thus, Middle Eastern states must remain alert and cautious, preparing for the possibility that Arab-Israeli cooperation prompts further Iranian aggression. 

Nevertheless, the recent peace deal between the UAE and Israel is a refreshing turn in Arab-Israeli relations, representing a momentous step towards greater unity in the Middle East, and providing hope for countries plagued by failing economies and political turmoil in the pandemic era.

Unfortunately, this lifeline was threatened in early August when the port of Beirut was destroyed by an explosion that killed at least 170 people and injured roughly 6,000 people. The Lebanese government claimed the blast was caused by over two thousand tons of ammonium nitrate stored unsafely in a warehouse. The ammonium nitrate had been stored in this warehouse since 2013, with the Port General Manager being aware of it. The government stated that it did not know the seriousness of the threat posed by this high quantity of fertilizer. Alternatively, Lebanese citizens claimed the explosion was a result of a long-standing pattern of corruption and negligence within the Lebanese government. 

In response to the blast, Beirut erupted into political unrest with demonstrators protesting against the government, who they feel is responsible for the explosion as well as the ongoing economic crisis. These protests were some of the largest and most violent the city has seen this year. Protesters were seen throwing stones and shards of glass at security forces, with police retaliating by firing rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets, and live fire.  

Prior to the explosion, Lebanon was already dealing with its worst economic crisis since its civil war in the 1990s. Citizens are enduring daily power cuts, a lack of safe drinking water, limited public healthcare, and the ongoing consequences of COVID-19. Since the explosion, citizens are also grappling with the fear of potential food shortages, given that the explosion destroyed around 15,000 tons of wheat and Lebanon’s main grain silo. The damage caused to the Beirut Port, which manages 82 percent of the country’s imports and exports, also threatens Lebanon’s food supply. Ships are now obligated to dock at other ports, which could result in limited food access, higher transportation costs, and an overall increase in the prices of food products. 

In response to the demonstrations, less than a week after the explosions, Lebanon’s government stepped down. This event represented the resignation of Lebanon’s third prime minister in less than a year. Prime Minister Hassan Diab was ushered into power last December following an uprising that forced the resignation of the previous government. Diab’s government was composed of technocrats and supported by the Iran-backed political and militant group Hezbollah. Additionally, his cabinet, along with other political elites, has allegedly spent billions of U.S. dollars, thereby depleting Lebanon’s currency reserves. Citizens have claimed that the nation’s elites have aligned with politicians to further their own agendas rather than prioritizing the nation as a whole. Following these allegations, Diab resigned along with the rest of his cabinet, leaving Lebanon with no leadership, an economic crisis, and civil unrest ‒ a fertile environment for a foreign power to assert its power and influence.  

France has had close ties with Lebanon dating back to the sixteenth century when the French monarchy intervened to protect Christians in the Ottoman Empire. The country’s control over Lebanon was legitimized by the League of Nations Mandate System following the First World War. France was assigned the mandate of Syria, which at the time included the territory of present-day Lebanon and Syria. Since then, French influence has remained strong within Lebanon’s culture and political system, with approximately 38 percent of the population speaking French, and the language being used widely in the spheres of business, education, and diplomacy. Because of these political and cultural ties, many Lebanese citizens still have faith in French leadership. What many citizens fail to realize is that French intervention in Lebanon could impede Lebanese citizens’ ability to reimagine and reconstruct the future of their country. 

France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, was the first world leader to visit Lebanon since the tragic explosion. Once there, he was surrounded by residents begging him and France to save Lebanon and denounce their leaders. In response to these cries, Macron vowed to coordinate international aid for Lebanon. France hosted an international donor’s conference which was attended by several world leaders, including the U.S. President Donald Trump and fifteen other heads of state. In total, they pledged approximately $300 million in aid to Lebanon. France has stated that Lebanon must first initiate reforms within its government in order to receive the monetary aid. Macron pledged: “France will never let Lebanon go. The heart of the French people still beats to the pulse of Beirut.” 

Macron’s rhetoric and aid efforts paint a problematic picture of France as Lebanon’s economic and political savior. Yet, the roots of Lebanon’s corrupt government can be traced back to the political system France imposed upon the nation during its colonial reign. It was France who instituted the confessional system that has riddled Lebanon with institutionalized sectarianism and corruption since its mandate in the 1940s. This system has failed to provide Lebanon with stability, thereby keeping the country reliant upon France’s political and economic support. This dependency has allowed France to remain a savior in the eyes of Lebanese citizens and continuously meddle in Lebanese political, economic and cultural affairs. It is no surprise that France is taking advantage of Lebanon’s recent political turmoil to assert its influence once again. 

Additionally, Macron’s recent actions and statements imply that France may be looking to reestablish a colonial-type relationship with Lebanon, and some seem to be in support of this move. In fact, an online petition which requests that France reinstate their colonial-era mandate over Lebanon for the next ten years garnered over 60,000 signatures. Lebanese citizens have signed the petition, showing their support for French intervention in Lebanon to guide the country’s governmental reform and transition to democracy. Though President Macron has firmly rejected the idea of reviving the French mandate, he continues to act as the de facto president of Lebanon. One senior Lebanese political source said that Macron was personally making calls to the country’s political parties as well as foreign powers on behalf of Lebanon. Macron is also attempting to push a new government in Lebanon, advocating for the installation of an interim technocratic government that will be able to enact reforms and persuade donors to release monetary aid. Yet, the outgoing government was composed mostly of technocrat ministers, and some citizens worry that the government’s pattern of corruption will continue if technocrats are put in power again. 

The main issue that comes to light in this scenario is that French-backed governmental reform in Lebanon could potentially lead to a colonial relationship between the two countries. Though French intervention could provide Lebanon with political stability, it could also reinforce colonial ties and create an exploitative relationship. France has been known to have close economic ties with Lebanon’s power brokers, including some who have been accused of fueling its political and economic crisis. This brings into question Macron’s motivations for instating an interim government of technocrats. Macron could be seeking to install leaders and establish a political system that supports French financial interests rather than the interests of the Lebanese people. 

French intervention in Lebanon could be the foundation for a new era of soft colonialism and imperialism. There are plenty of nation-states that are still struggling to establish political and economic stability given the devastating and long lasting impact of colonialism. And, as in Lebanon, there may be an incentive for powerful nations to intervene once again. 

Nevertheless, many factors prevent powerful nations from once again colonizing developing nations. The most significant constraints are the established norms of the international system, and in particular, the principle of nonintervention outlined in the UN Charter. Because of these norms, powerful nations have, for the most part, moved beyond the colonial objectives of territorial gain and total political control, and opted instead for a diplomatic strategy that prioritizes political alliances and economic influence. With this shift in diplomatic tactics, most of these powerful nations rely on cooperation rather than exploitation to broaden their sphere of influence within the international system. Yet, France’s intervention in Lebanon could perpetuate a soft colonialist trend that encourages powerful nations to use their established economic and political ties to exploit developing nations. 

If France continues with its intervention in Lebanon, it will be setting a precedent that may encourage other powerful nations to engage in neo-colonial diplomacy. A rise in colonialism and imperialism could create a competitive landscape in which superpowers increasingly assert their power, influence, and governance on developing nations. 

There is no doubt that Lebanon could use France’s assistance to establish political stability, but France must walk a fine line to ensure it does not overstep the bounds of Lebanon’s sovereignty. France’s strategy in Lebanon should consist of providing financial aid while guiding the country towards a democratic government chosen by the Lebanese people. France risks eroding the international norms of diplomacy and potentially initiating a global neo-colonialist trend if it uses its influence in Lebanon to push its political and economic agenda.