��������

Ceasefire or no ceasefire, flights to Beirut are full. The diaspora is heading back for Christmas, like every holiday, as if nothing happened and while we are still technically in a war zone. It was also thus during the summer, when the country was obviously on the edge of an abyss but the partying continued.

We all know it cannot go on like this forever, but as long as we can find a way to live with it, we will. There must be some law to describe the phenomenon: the more hardship you can take, the more hardship you will get, until you cannot take it anymore.

Some call it the resilience of Lebanese society. The Lebanese seem to have the ability to accommodate and move on — a sign of strength. As someone on X put it, as soon as the fighting stops, we go back to abnormal.

But it is also a sign of resignation, of acceptance that nothing can change or that change takes too much effort and is risky. It is a form of powerlessness as things go from bad to worse — a downward spiral from which it is impossible to emerge. The problem is precisely that the Lebanese can adapt to anything and this can continue for a long time. The longer it lasts, the less reversible it is.

Dr. Mohammed Chatah observed this in 2012, the year before he was assassinated, and wrote about it in his blog. On Beirut’s corniche, people looked happy and oblivious to the steady and regular degradation their country was experiencing, while he could see the coming danger. It reminded him of the “boiling frog” phenomenon, where if you put a frog in a pot of water and let the temperature rise slowly, then the frog will not react to the gradual heating of the water. The frog even appears to enjoy it until it reaches a deadly level. But by then the frog is incapable of jumping out of the pot.

This time, what is needed is a long-term solution that will save the country and the region from another war

Nadim Shehadi

You cannot really blame the frog, nor can you blame the Lebanese. According to Chatah: “It is those who can turn off the switch before it is too late who deserve the blame.” That was more than 12 years ago, when, in retrospect, we had seen nothing. Since then, we have seen the paralysis of government, economic decline, financial collapse and the coronavirus, plus a nuclear-scale blast that destroyed half of Beirut.

The lesson for today is that accommodating the crisis with temporary measures and continuing as though nothing has happened is no longer an option. We have reached the proverbial boiling point, beyond which there can be no return.

The solution proposed is a temporary ceasefire to allow the implementation of a temporary solution based on another temporary ceasefire reached in August 2006. The message from Chatah is that we cannot afford to do this again. This time, what is needed is a long-term solution that will save the country and the region from another war.

The Syrian regime cloned itself in Lebanon between 1990 and 2005. It penetrated every institution and political party, including ministries, the army, the security services and even religious organizations. Syria also facilitated the creation of Hezbollah, sponsored by its ally Iran, and balanced it out with Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was close to ��������.

The root of the problem may be in a system built on endless compromise and the contradictions of coexistence. It is almost immune to any reform or radical change. In fact, Lebanese politicians are underrated and have a unique capability for engaging in a balancing act under the most difficult circumstances.

The root of the problem may be in a system built on endless compromise and the contradictions of coexistence

Nadim Shehadi

The argument goes like this: If the system is in crisis, then change is resisted because it should not happen under pressure. Once a compromise is reached, then change is also resisted because it could upset the balance and, since there is no crisis, there is no more urgency, as the system is working and there is no need for change.

Temporary solutions tend to become permanent, like UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war with Israel. A compromise was reached that brought about stability and the country went back to “normal.” This was a false stability Lebanon was eager to maintain and reluctant to upset by pursuing more radical reforms, such as the disarmament of Hezbollah.

An attempt in May 2008 to curb Hezbollah’s communications infrastructure and its control of Beirut airport ended up with a violent attack on the city by the group’s “black shirts” and the threat of another civil war, so the government retracted.

Another crisis in January 2011 collapsed the government of Saad Hariri, which lost its majority under the threat of violence. A group of MPs was pressured to switch sides again to avert another civil war.

The risk is exactly that with today’s ceasefire and the return to apparent normality: internal tension between Hezbollah and its critics could result in violence, which could bring back the spirit of compromise, meaning Hezbollah will be allowed to keep its arms north of the Litani river — the line that the Israelis specified. Meanwhile, the can of long-term disarmament is kicked ever further down the road.

The Assad regime has collapsed in Syria, but its clone implanted in Lebanon is now part of the system of compromise, which at the same time protects it. In a country where a coup or a revolution is impossible and where we are addicted to half measures, will we allow the frog to boil or will we find responsible leaders who will turn off the switch before it is too late?

• Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. X: @Confusezeus