The Lebanese have good reasons to fear another civil war. That fear should impose obligations on those capable of provoking conflict. Too often, it becomes an obligation on everyone else to accommodate them. The cabinet’s handling of the Dahr al-Baidar explosives case exposes this imbalance. On October 22, ministers left unresolved Justice Minister Adel Nassar’s request to refer the case to the Judicial Council. The government said investigations should proceed under the law and that consideration of the referral would continue as they progressed. Lebanese Forces ministers walked out in protest.
The distinction matters. The investigation has not been abandoned, and choosing a judicial forum is a legitimate procedural question. Information Minister Paul Morcos said ministers had discussed the completeness of the file and whether the Judicial Council would offer a faster process. Immediate referral would not, by itself, establish guilt or guarantee justice. The test is whether investigators can pursue responsibility wherever the evidence leads.
Yet the political response deserves scrutiny. Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc welcomed the delay while describing the handling of the case as political targeting that did not serve internal stability. Jaafari Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan warned the executive authorities against “political and security suicide” and urged an end to what he described as judicial maneuvering.
Civil peace becomes a veto when the anticipated reaction of the powerful determines how far the law can reach.
This language places the consequences of accountability at the center of the discussion. Attention moves from the transport of explosives to the dangers that might follow an attempt to establish responsibility. The authorities are asked to consider how far they can proceed without unsettling the political order. A government must assess such dangers. It also has to ask who is responsible for creating them. Civil peace becomes a veto when the anticipated reaction of the powerful determines how far the law can reach.
Hezbollah has acknowledged ownership of the seized shipment, saying it was intended for use against Israeli forces. That acknowledgement does not settle individual criminal responsibility, which requires evidence and due process. Nor does the party’s declared purpose remove the public’s interest in establishing who authorized the transport, how it was organized and what risks it created. For families living along the route or near storage sites, those questions concern their safety. They should not have to establish their political neutrality before being entitled to answers.
The role of Nabih Berri is consequential here. Sources reported consultations between Berri, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam before the cabinet session that helped produce the compromise. Aoun publicly praised Berri’s support for the army, civil peace and dialogue. Salam reaffirmed the state’s authority over weapons and the need to pursue violations.
Berri’s ability to reduce tensions can have immediate value. The question is what his mediation leaves behind. Does it secure cooperation with investigators and acceptance of judicial decisions? Does it make public institutions more capable of acting independently when the next dispute arises?
If every confrontation ends with institutions still dependent on the same intermediary, the broker’s authority has been renewed while the state’s remains conditional. A successful phone call may prevent an immediate crisis. It cannot substitute indefinitely for rules that continue to operate after the call ends.
This is where Lebanon’s memory of violence acquires political force. For people who have lived through war, warnings about instability carry consequences far beyond the argument being made. They evoke displacement, destroyed livelihoods and the possibility that an ordinary disagreement could become irreversible. Caution is understandable.
That caution can also be used to narrow the choices citizens believe are available. Once accountability is associated with renewed conflict, accepting an exception begins to look responsible. The person demanding an answer can be made to appear reckless, while the actor resisting scrutiny presents itself as a guardian of stability.
No explicit promise of violence is necessary for that pressure to work. Anticipation can do the work of a threat. Officials may begin adjusting decisions around the reaction they expect, and citizens may lower their demands before anyone openly tells them to do so.
A political order that rewards the capacity to disrupt makes restraint a disadvantage.
The resulting inequality reaches beyond one party. Political actors can learn that the capacity to obstruct, mobilize or destabilize makes their demands harder to ignore. Citizens who pursue their rights peacefully have fewer means of forcing attention. Their restraint becomes something the system can take for granted. A political order that rewards the capacity to disrupt makes restraint a disadvantage.
Aoun and Salam therefore owe the public a clear account of what this compromise enables. If allowing the investigation to progress before deciding on referral is justified, they should explain the procedural reasoning and defend the investigation’s independence in practice. Lawful summonses and orders must be carried out regardless of affiliation. Any obstruction should produce a response, rather than another negotiation over whether compliance is politically convenient.
Regular public updates can establish that the case is moving without exposing confidential evidence or prejudging suspects. The government must demonstrate that time is being used to establish responsibility. Otherwise, delay risks becoming a condition that the politically protected can renew.
Preserving calm today is a serious responsibility. So is ensuring that tomorrow’s officials inherit greater freedom to enforce the law. A compromise that achieves the first while repeatedly weakening the second leaves the country dependent on the goodwill of whoever can cause the next crisis.
Aoun, Salam and Berri should be judged by whether the present arrangement allows the investigation to reach those responsible, including anyone with the power to make that outcome politically uncomfortable. The public should not have to keep purchasing another period of calm by surrendering its claim to equal protection.
Ramzi Abou Ismail is a Political Psychologist, Researcher and Analyst.
The views in this story reflect those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of NOW.
