If you spend time in Lebanon, you will frequently hear the term “bukra.” Bukra translates to “tomorrow.” The Lebanese often use the term in the context of deadlines, expectations, and responsibilities. For example, “When will my car be fixed?” “Bukra.”
One quickly learns that bukra is not a serious response in Lebanon. It is an excuse—a “promise” that evades any firm commitment. The promise of “tomorrow” leaves the respondent believing he is entitled to determine when and how he feels or desires (if ever, anything).
Given the prevalence of that thinking in Lebanon, it is not surprising to witness it once more in the context of the country’s international affairs. Lebanon’s leadership agreed to a ceasefire with Israel beginning on November 27.
Seven months later, the Lebanese officials are still promising that the terms of the ceasefire agreement will be realized “tomorrow,” the latest being Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on May 26. The behavior exudes an aura of entitlement and unaccountability that further degrades whatever remains of the country and erases its future.
Lebanon is a dystopic state and society. It experienced 13 months of daily violence and further destruction of its land because it could not control its southern border. Periodic violence continues. Lebanon endures the fifth year of a historic economic collapse and massive inflation.
Crime and corruption are rampant. Among other things, there have been no state indictments regarding more than a dozen assassinations of political, state, and media personalities and the Beirut port blast. Basic services are almost nonexistent. A full day of electricity is a luxury and modest healthcare comes at a premium.
Despite all that, many Lebanese officials and their supporters act as if time is on their side. They believe commitments can be adjusted to suit their interests. They feel deserving of constant international pandering and a “special status.” They think their word is forever good. Note the entitlement and lack of accountability.
Lebanese officials demonstrate an indifference to deadlines. They had 60 days and a 22-day extension to implement the stipulations of a US-mediated ceasefire with Israel—disarm and remove the Lebanese militia Hezbollah—and failed. When or if the terms will be realized is anyone’s guess.
Their behavior is remarkable. US mediation saved the already debilitated country from further destruction. Any grateful entity would recognize this opportunity to prevent another outbreak of violence and to put Lebanon on the road to recovery. Instead, the Lebanese government drags its feet.
Many Lebanese point the finger at Israel for its shortcomings regarding the ceasefire. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun regularly speaks to US officials (responsible for monitoring the ceasefire) about “outstanding issues” regarding the ceasefire and Israeli violations.
Lebanese personalities blame Israel’s continued presence at five locations in Lebanese territory for impeding their ability to disarm and remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Who exactly governs Lebanon?
Their rhetoric is quite ironic. Have Lebanese officials forgotten what transpired in 2006? Following a 33-day war initiated by Hezbollah, UN Resolution 1701 stipulated an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
It also called on Lebanese officials to disarm Hezbollah and remove the militia from southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew. Lebanon did not disarm and remove the militia.
Their failure enabled Hezbollah’s unprovoked October 8, 2023, attack on Israel. Why would Israel trust Lebanon and make itself vulnerable again?
Lebanese officials decided to adjust the terms of the ceasefire agreement after signing it. The Lebanese president announced that a dialogue with Hezbollah must precede their disarmament.
When the dialogue happens, how long it will take, and whether it will be a success are mysteries. What would happen if Hezbollah decided not to cooperate? Nothing? Like before?
Israel would not have agreed to a ceasefire under these conditions. The Lebanese track record on domestic dialogues is poor. The behavior indicates that Lebanese leadership either never intended to fully implement the ceasefire or knew they could not.
One wonders if leadership and its supporters are serious about rebuilding the country for tomorrow, bukra. Recent attention by the Lebanese government has been on disarming Palestinians residing in Lebanon while ignoring the real elephant in the room—Hezbollah.
The longer Hezbollah stays armed, the chance for violence remains and the harder it is to disarm the militia. Both factors deter investment in the country and hopes of a return to normalcy. Has leadership forgotten that a majority of Lebanese are impoverished?
Lebanon has little to offer the world at the moment. Lebanon’s halcyon days as a hub of commerce and banking are 50 years removed. They are reliant on the goodwill of the United States, Europe, the Gulf and international institutions.
Do the Lebanese believe they can continue to act and think this way without repercussions? Do they want their word to eventually be as worthless as the Lebanese pound?
Until those leaders get serious about shedding their entitlement and becoming accountable, the bukra many Lebanese speak about will continue to look like an immiserating today. Inaction, empty words, excuses and finger-pointing come at a price to the country’s image, its people and its future.
