تتزامن الزيارة المرتقبة إلى بيروت لوزير الدولة في وزارة الخارجية القطرية محمد بن عبد العزيز الخليفي المكلّف بمتابعة عدد من الملفات الإقليمية الحساسة ومن بينها الملف اللبناني، مع تسريبات تتحدث عن نية قطر الشروع في إعادة إعمار قرى وبلدات حدودية مدمّرة في جنوب لبنان، وتحديدًا بحسب معلومات موقع "مصدر دبلوماسي": كفركلا، عيتا الشعب، يارين، الجبين، طير حرفا، وعلما الشعب
Masdar Diplomacy
By Marlene Khalife
The anticipated visit to Beirut by Qatar’s Minister of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi—who is tasked with overseeing several sensitive regional files, including Lebanon—comes amid reports suggesting that Doha is considering launching a reconstruction initiative targeting devastated border villages in southern Lebanon. According to information obtained by Masdar Diplomacy the villages cited include Kfar Kila, Aita al-Shaab, Yaroun, al-Jebbayn, Tyre Harfa, and Alma al-Shaab.
The reports indicate that the visit forms part of a broader Qatari diplomatic move, following claims that the Qatari ambassador to Beirut, Sheikh Saud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, informed the US ambassador, Michel Issa, during a recent meeting that the proposed initiative had received what was described as a “green light.” Such claims inevitably raise political and security questions regarding the timing, motivations, and feasibility of the initiative.
Any assessment of this proposal, however, that is detached from the wider security-military and geopolitical context would be inherently flawed. Indeed, it warrants serious skepticism—not only about its practical viability, but also about its political underpinnings and whether it converges with or contradicts the prevailing US-Israeli projects being discussed for the southern border region.
Reconstruction without a ceasefire?
The most immediate and self-evident source of doubt lies in the current security reality. Talk of reconstruction in southern Lebanon comes at a time when Israeli attacks continue on a near-daily basis, south and north of the Litani River as well as in the Bekaa, with no genuine commitment to a ceasefire and no Israeli withdrawal from positions that remain occupied or contested.
Under such conditions, the launch of reconstruction efforts becomes deeply questionable. Ongoing bombardment strips any project of its practical foundations and raises fundamental concerns about the ability of relevant actors to provide even minimal security for returning residents and construction workers alike. It also calls into question the very logic of rebuilding homes and infrastructure that remain vulnerable to renewed destruction at any moment—turning reconstruction into a futile, open-ended cycle.
Any reconstruction initiative that is not preceded or accompanied by a firmly established cessation of hostilities and clear international guarantees risks becoming little more than a media or political gesture rather than a viable development project.
The geopolitics of the targeted villages: coincidence or signal?
A second, more profound source of doubt concerns the geopolitical location of the six villages in question. All lie within what was once known as the “border strip” occupied by Israel for many years prior to its withdrawal in 2000. These areas are acutely sensitive from a security standpoint and have historically constituted a direct frontline with Israel.
Notably, these same villages “coincidentally” fall within the zone being promoted in US discourse—particularly in the rhetoric associated with Donald Trump and his circle—as part of a broader approach to a border economic area, both on land and in its indirect maritime extension. This convergence invites legitimate questions: Is the purported Qatari initiative independent of US-Israeli visions for the future of the southern border strip? Or does it, directly or indirectly, serve to prepare the ground for projects aimed at reshaping the demographic and urban reality of these areas?
Rebuilding devastated border villages without addressing the issues of occupation and ongoing aggression, and without clarity regarding ultimate objectives, risks linking reconstruction to political and security conditions that transcend Lebanon’s core national interests.
A “green light”… for whom?
The reference to a “green light” itself introduces a troubling ambiguity. If the signal is American, the obvious question follows: Is it contingent upon explicit or implicit Israeli approval? And under the current balance of power, is it even conceivable to implement any reconstruction project in this region without Israeli consent?
If, on the other hand, there is no Israeli green light, then the initiative—if it exists at all—appears closer to a non-binding declaration of intent or an attempt to score political and media points by portraying Qatar as a supporter of Lebanon, without bearing the real costs of confronting on-the-ground and political obstacles.
Between genuine support and selling illusions
This leads to the central question: Are we facing a serious Qatari initiative involving long-term commitments and clear security and political guarantees? Or is this an attempt to sell Lebanese audiences “fish still in the sea”—to gesture toward reconstruction in order to claim moral support for Lebanon, without addressing the core problem of ongoing aggression and the absence of a comprehensive political solution?
Past experience in southern Lebanon underscores that reconstruction cannot be piecemeal, nor can it be detached from an integrated political-security framework that safeguards Lebanese sovereignty and prevents rebuilt villages from becoming bargaining chips in regional or international projects.
Ultimately, the mooted Qatari initiative to reconstruct border villages in southern Lebanon appears to generate more questions than answers. The absence of a ceasefire, the continuation of occupation and attacks, the sensitivity of the targeted geography, and the potential overlap with broader US-Israeli projects all demand that such promises be treated with extreme caution.
Accordingly, any responsible official or media approach in Lebanon must begin with a single, clear question: Does this initiative—if it exists—serve Lebanon’s interests and sovereignty first and foremost, or does it fall within the framework of regional settlements whose maps are being drawn far from the south and its people?
