When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners

**When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners**

**134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983**

**Introduction**

Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, to the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister on January 13, 2025, it became clear that the political compass was veering away from its traditional orientation. But the most dangerous shift was not the name of the new prime minister — it was the event that erupted unexpectedly from Naqoura: the first official direct meeting between Lebanon and Israel since 1983, and under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah itself.

**The Absence of the Man Who Drew the Red Line**

Appointing Nawaf Salam was no simple step. He arrived after the absence of the one man who had, for years, stood as an impenetrable barrier against any attempt to impose a government through external pressure. Sayyed Nasrallah had the power to block entire governmental formations to preserve sovereignty and protect national decision-making. With his absence, Salam’s name passed as a “mandatory solution” under suffocating international pressure and an internally fractured reality — not as a natural political choice but as an act of submission to a new equation.

The background attributed to Salam — including claims about his advisory role during the May 17, 1983 negotiations — has never been presented to the public through official documents, yet he has never categorically denied it. This alone was enough to trigger sensitivity within the Resistance’s base. Nevertheless, the settlement moved forward, ushering in a different political phase.

**Naqoura: The Event That Revealed Everything**

What happened in Naqoura was neither a “technical committee” nor a “monitoring meeting.” It was the first official direct encounter with Israel since the May 17, 1983 Agreement. And comparing the contexts of 1983 and 2025 exposes the magnitude of the shift.

**1983:**

In that year, the Lebanese state was almost entirely under the Western axis. The government led by Shafiq al-Wazzan was fundamentally distant from the Resistance project, and Hezbollah had not yet even been born politically. There was no force within the state that expressed the popular sentiment that would later crystallize into an armed resistance. Thus, the May 17 Agreement came within a state leaning toward accommodation with Israel, even at a severe cost to sovereignty.

**2025:**

Today, however, the meeting took place under a government that includes ministers directly affiliated with Hezbollah — a party that has become an established pillar of political life for years, representing a massive constituency of resistance supporters. For the first Lebanese–Israeli official meeting in forty years to occur under a government containing the party cannot be dismissed as an incidental event or a mere procedural error. It is a genuine political turning point, occurring under an authority expected to represent the environment closest to the Resistance — not a government orbiting the West, as in 1983.

**The Deception of Timing: When the Country Is Distracted… the Most Dangerous Steps Pass**

The scene became even more alarming because of the way the meeting was passed. It occurred at a moment when all of Lebanon — the public and the media — was absorbed by the Pope’s visit, a monumental spiritual and national event that dominated the country’s attention. Amid this total distraction, the Naqoura meeting was held quietly, wrapped in vague official language about a “technical committee” and “ceasefire monitoring.”

But everything was exposed when Netanyahu emerged with the blunt Israeli narrative: **“This is the beginning of relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Lebanon.”**

With that statement, the entire “technical committee” narrative collapsed.

**Parliament’s Responsibility… Where Did It Go?**

One would have expected the political arena to tremble, and the parliamentary blocs aligned with the Resistance to move against a step of this magnitude. But the opposite happened: – No open debates took place – No serious accountability was demanded – No opposition proportional to the gravity of the event emerged

This silence was the real test — not just for the government, but for all the forces that supposedly represent the Resistance’s constituency in Parliament. The event passed without the confrontation its danger required, leaving the door open for those wishing to test Lebanon’s — all of Lebanon’s — ability to accept the first step of disguised normalization.

**Iraq… A Glimpse in the Same Direction**

In Iraq, a similar indicator appears, though less central to this context. Donald Trump’s statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani “nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize,” while Trump is himself wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for the Baghdad Airport assassination, exposes a clear gap between what people expect and the decisions being shaped within the state. It is yet another sign of an era in which authority is managed with a logic that resembles neither its people nor their sacrifices.

**Conclusion**

Naqoura is not a meeting. It is a political turning point in every sense — a moment that shatters a forty-year-old equation. And when such a step occurs under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah, its significance multiplies, its responsibility widens, and its danger grows.

**When a decision no longer resembles its owners… the road that ends in disaster begins.

****🔵**[Link to the article in Arabic](https://t.me/almuraqb/278)[ ](https://t.me/almuraqb/269)