Writing in these pages in 1952, Lebanese diplomat Charles Malik urged the United States to protect the security of a free and independent Lebanon. He described Lebanon's unique position--and predicament--of standing between East and West, looking toward the culture and markets of the Arab world and toward the sophistication and political liberties of the West. He made an eloquent appeal: "The Lebanon could not be true to East and West alike unless she stood for existential freedom. In the end is this alone her justification . . . . Whoever is about to suffocate must be able to breathe freely in the Lebanon."
David Ignatius, the Middle East correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, has traveled extensively in Lebanon.
Writing in these pages in 1952, Lebanese diplomat Charles Malik urged the United States to protect the security of a free and independent Lebanon. He described Lebanon's unique position-and predicament-of standing between East and West, looking toward the culture and markets of the Arab world and toward the sophistication and political liberties of the West. He made an eloquent appeal: "The Lebanon could not be true to East and West alike unless she stood for existential freedom. In the end is this alone her justification . . . . Whoever is about to suffocate must be able to breathe freely in the Lebanon."1
The intervening 31 years have mostly been disastrous ones for Lebanese politics. Mr. Malik's vision of democracy and tolerance collapsed, as the country fought two civil wars and almost non-stop skirmishes. Instead of being a neutral bridge between the Arabs and Europe, Lebanon became a battleground for Arab-Israeli and inter-Arab conflict. The country that had looked East and West found itself betrayed on both fronts: by the manipulation of its Arab and Israeli neighbors and by the indifference of the West.
Last summer's Israeli invasion gave Lebanon a chance to break out of this vicious spiral. The war destroyed the Palestinian armed presence in Beirut and South Lebanon, which had exacerbated the country's internal problems. Just as important, the war forced the United States and its NATO allies to intervene decisively on behalf of the frail Lebanese government. But the war also raised the fundamental question of whether a permanent restoration of the nation of Lebanon is possible, or even desirable.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Hezbollah may have lost Lebanon’s election, but it remains the country’s dominant political force.
This summer, Hezbollah and Israel blundered into a war that neither anticipated, and the costs for Lebanon have been high. But if Beirut and the international community handle the crisis well, the end result might still be surprisingly positive: a more stable Lebanon that could help secure a true regional peace.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.