The National Bloc organized a political panel discussion on the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War, the National Bloc held a political panel discussion featuring political science professor Dr. Carmen Abou Jaoude, academic and political analyst Dr. Harith Suleiman, and international law expert Dr. Rizk Zgheib. The discussion was moderated by journalist Lara Nabhan, and took place at the Sursock Museum in Beirut.

Helou

Before the discussion began, National Bloc Secretary General Michel Helou delivered opening remarks, stating that “the question of whether the civil war has truly ended remains unresolved, even 35 years after the cessation of fighting.”
He stressed, “To truly say ‘We remember so it doesn’t happen again,’ we must first actually remember.” He emphasized that “remembrance isn’t for the generation that lived through the war, but for the new generations who may be at risk of reliving it.”
He added, “If we don’t confront our civil war and its full tragedy, how can we be certain that it has truly ended?”

Nabhan

At the start of the panel, Nabhan commended the National Bloc for organizing the discussion, thanking them for creating space to engage with a subject that still deeply impacts the present. She noted that she belongs to a generation that did not experience the civil war firsthand, “but was born in areas still suffering from its effects, haunted by its shadow to this day.”

Suleiman

Suleiman pointed out that Raymond Eddé was among the few who opposed the Cairo Agreement, called for international forces, and rejected violence and bearing arms. He highlighted Eddé’s clear foresight in predicting the dangers of sliding into war.
He stated that “Eddé’s legacy today represents a great national value, just as the revival of the National Bloc represents a challenge carried by those undertaking it.”

Suleiman noted that the ongoing debate about how to define the war—Was it a civil war? An internal conflict? A war of others on our land? Or a war for the sake of others?—reflects the Lebanese tendency to place blame on external actors while forgetting that “locals also took part in a war that opened the doors to all kinds of foreign interference.”
He concluded that “civil wars are never purely internal—they are always concurrent with and interwoven with foreign interventions.”

He recalled that the real preparation for war began in May 1973, setting Lebanon on the path toward its eventual explosion, and invoked Bismarck’s saying: “The most profitable war is the one that is avoided.”
Suleiman argued that Lebanon’s structural problem lies in the nature of its socio-political system, where the political structure allows sectarian parties to thrive. These parties are neither democratic nor do they allow internal transfer of leadership. They are built on sectarian identities and tribal loyalties, each trying to unify the sect it claims to represent by suppressing internal diversity and dissenting voices. They then attempt to dominate other groups by aligning with regional or international backers.

He described these parties as instruments of internal authoritarianism within each sect and platforms that invite external intervention and polarization, creating a never-ending cycle of conflict. This socio-political structure, Suleiman concluded, has turned Lebanon from a nation-state into a battlefield and a collection of war trenches.

He emphasized that the solution lies in making the state stronger than sectarian parties, empowering it to protect citizens and provide services, and enabling political diversity within each sect. This would eventually lead to the emergence of political entities that transcend identity-based divisions.
He insisted that the problem is not with the system itself or with the constitution, but with the corrupt, mafia-like ruling class that has exploited the system to deepen division instead of healing it.

Abou Jaoude

Dr. Abou Jaoude addressed the human dimension of the civil war, delving into its deep-rooted structural causes. She emphasized that understanding the war and addressing its consequences is essential to finding serious solutions to escape the cycle of violence.
She said that in wars, “there are no real victors—entire societies bear the cost.”
She reminded the audience that although the war officially ended in 1990, “no one has asked about the victims.”
She cited official statistics of over 100,000 killed, 17,000 missing, in addition to the wounded, displaced, and thousands still suffering from its consequences today.

Zgheib

Dr. Zgheib, for his part, stated that “we’ve been living in a wartime mentality since 1975,” but that the roots of the war go back even further—to the emergence of sectarian identities in Lebanon, which sparked the first civil war in 1841.
He explained that when a sectarian system coincides with a political system based on division and exclusion, civil war becomes a recurring and likely outcome.
He stressed that when parties become the exclusive representatives of their sects and cross-sectarian alliances disappear, the Lebanese political system, which is supposed to be a republican, democratic, and parliamentary system based on political majority and minority coalitions that are sectarianly diverse, collapses. This collapse, combined with encouraging foreign factors, creates a pathway to endless war.

He added that when one party monopolizes the representation of its sect for decades, even if it holds symbolic or religious legitimacy, the inevitable result is corruption. Without power rotation, corruption cannot be broken, since democracy relies on change and accountability, not on monopoly.

Regarding the issue of arms, Zgheib stated that the success of any disarmament path depends on ensuring that the community hosting the weapons does not feel targeted or oppressed by the process. He added that the real issue lies in how both the weapons and the armed groups are addressed.

At the end of the panel, the session concluded with attendees exchanging ideas and continuing the discussion.