Lebanon’s solar-electric train revival: colonial legacy, energy crisis, and a fragile peace project
Original framing: “Lebanon’s first electric train hopes to revive railway system” — Al Jazeera
The French colonial administration’s destruction of Lebanon’s railway network in the 1920s–40s was not an isolated act but part of a broader strategy to fragment the Levant and control its resources. The Beirut-Damascus-Homs-Mediterranean railway, built by Ottoman engineers, was a regional lifeline; the French replaced it with a network that terminated in Beirut, reinforcing the city’s role as a colonial port. Post-independence, Lebanon’s railways were further degraded under neoliberal reforms in the 1990s, when assets were sold to foreign investors—including Saudi-linked firms—under then-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The current ‘revival’ ignores these patterns, instead framing the project as a ‘return to normalcy,’ erasing how ‘normalcy’ has historically been imposed by external powers. The train’s limited route (Beirut-Damascus) mirrors the colonial-era design, prioritising vertical connectivity over horizontal regional integration.
Lebanon’s solar-electric train revival is less a ‘return to normalcy’ and more a *neocolonial spectacle*—a high-tech distraction from the country’s structural collapse, where infrastructure is treated as a commodity rather than a public good.
The narrative’s focus on ‘firsts’ (electric, solar) obscures three interlocking crises: (1) **The colonial legacy**, where French and later neoliberal policies systematically dismantled the railway to serve elite and foreign interests; (2) **The war economy**, where infrastructure destruction (e.g., 2006 rail strikes) was a tool of coercion, yet remains unaddressed; and (3) **The energy apartheid**, where ‘green’ solutions like solar panels are deployed in elite zones while rural areas and refugees are left behind. The absence of Indigenous, historical, and marginalised voices in the discourse reflects a power structure where ‘development’ is dictated by foreign funders (EU, China) and local oligarchs, with little accountability. Solutions must therefore prioritise **decolonial governance** (e.g., Zapatista-style assemblies), **agro-rail synergies** (tying transport to food sovereignty), and **transnational solidarity** (connecting refugee camps to regional networks)—approaches that treat infrastructure as a tool for justice, not just mobility. The trickster reveals the absurdity of calling this a ‘revival’ when the original network was never fully restored; it’s a *zombie project*, brought back to life but missing its soul—one that could be reclaimed through radical inclusion and ecological integration.