the short answer is "not exactly". but, i have a more subtle answer.
with the current nonsense on the fake left about arabs being victims of colonialism, it's easy to forget that the arabs actually invented colonialism as we understand it today, and that it (along with chattel slavery of africans based not on their status as black but rather due to them being non-muslims) was copied by the spaniards, with the blessing of the pope, via the dum diversas. colonialism as we understand it today is not something that was invented by white people to oppress brown people, but was something that was invented by arabs to oppress non-muslims. the cultural interchange between crazy christians and crazy muslims was complex; jihad was actually invented by a christian emperor named heraclius, and used to reconquer jerusalem from the persians, before it turned into the idea of the crusades, and was copied by the arabs during the apocalyptic period that followed the last roman-persian war, which was catastrophic for both sides. however, colonialism and slavery (as we understand them today) were both their idea first, and copied by spaniards in order to compete with them, during the reconquista. history has somehow forgotten that christopher colombus was actually brown and that the genocidal spaniards that followed him were all part arab bastards with tanned or brown skin as well. christianity itself was invented by and spread by brown southerners northwards, in an attempt to settle the lighter skinned german, slavic and celtic speaking people of northern europe.
arabic colonialism, which started around the year 700 ce and peaked around the year 1258 ce before entering a period of decline after the mongolian sack of baghdad (an arab city built on top of a greek city built on top of the persified ruins of babylon), created a large contiguously ruled region of the middle east and north africa with a common language and religion and very different ethnic identities. the people of north africa know they have a history older than islam, even if they can't fully articulate it due to it being lost or destroyed, and largely identify as a disparate group of people that are not arabs. the iranians kept their language and modified the religion of the arabs and know they are not arabs and get angry when you suggest they are. my theory of kurdish origins is that the kurds descend from mesopotamian persians and greeks fleeing the arabic invasion c. 700 and the etymology of kurd as 'refugee' is the correct one. they have held out in the mountains, resisting arabic colonization, for centuries. asian migrants named turks entered the region with the mongols and maintained their identity where they settled, eventually succeeding in conquering rome, where the arabs had failed for centuries (legend has it due to a giant bulgarian-built catapult, but in truth due to the slow decline of a decaying imperial force). the arabs were most successful in colonizing iraq, and arguably nearly succeeded in colonizing egypt; in egypt, they know their history, but have largely chosen to identify as arabs. likewise, most palestinians are fully aware that they are actually colonized and converted hebrews and not migratory arabs, but they have decided to ignore that, and have in varying levels of sincerity adopted a founding myth about canaanite continuity that no archaeologist takes seriously. the dna tests are really pretty clear.
lebanon is actually most similar to iran in that they know they are not arabs and do not like it when you tell them they are. but, who are the lebanese?
the lebanese are the descendants of the phoenicians and carthaginians, and my understanding of the actual history (not the biblical history) is that you cannot differentiate between hebrews and phoenicians, who probably called themselves canaanites. the roman genocide of the ancient lebanese was so thorough that we only have scattered fragments of their language, but it was basically ancient hebrew, and we cannot even state with certainty what they called themselves, but it strongly appears to be canaanites. the religion of the ancient hebrew masses was likely not post-cyrus judaism (a fact alluded to in the old testament myths, as the people are constantly being punished for not worshipping yahweh), but the ancient canaanite religion of the region, which was the same religion as the phoenicians and carthaginians. it is even likely that the roman persecution of the jews, which happened centuries before constantine purportedly saw a genocidal vision in the sky, was based on the identification of jews with carthaginians and the realization that cato's mission had not been fully accomplished. the idea that jews eat babies appears to be based on roman propaganda from the punic wars, which may or may not have had some basis in fact, as there is some evidence of child sacrifice occurring in carthage. the story of abraham and isaac in the old testament is probably a memory of ancient canaanite/hebrew/carthaginian/phoenecian child sacrifice rituals, and likely records how the authorities changed this practice, some time around or perhaps before the persian conquest undid the assyrian captivity.
if the phoenicians were in fact a branch of northern hebrews that existed before the return from captivity established a jewish origin myth and national and cultural identity, it does follow that lebanon might belong in a greater israel.
...if you're insane.
which these people are.
i want to ask a different question, and it is this: would the substantive christian minority in lebanon rather live under iranian hegemony, or be a part of israel?
the lebanese people are entitled to self-determination. and, if the shit hits the fan, israel may find itself with allies in lebanon that are interested in political union.