LONDON – Lebanese state officials have taken on themselves the responsibility to protect the state’s borders, defend their citizens and preserve their sovereignty.
But did they choose to do that? Did they choose to have the means to do so? Can they equip themselves with the tools they need? Do they have a real will to do it? Are they even allowed to do so? If they are under pressure and threat of boycotts and lockdowns, are they ready to work for it?
The Lebanese state is tied to partnership with the American-led western camp, with every step of Lebanon consistent with its orientation. But are Eastern Camps not available to them? Are they not considering dealing with it for the benefit of the country where the possibility is blocked by the West Camp?
There are many states that help Lebanon strengthen itself and provide what it needs without conditions. Some countries even offered to provide Lebanon with free military assistance to defend themselves during the war. However, officials and control structures argued to follow the Western project vision at the expense of Lebanon’s interests, sovereignty and rights of infringement.
Still, the Lebanese state can play its part in relations with the West, bringing the best possible for Lebanon. This includes making the enemy resist in confronting an attack until they are convinced they will pay the price for the infringement. If this mission is assigned to people who have adopted it into themselves, let them do it. Coexist between these two roles in ways that reinforce Lebanon’s power and role.
But if the Lebanese state chooses to go with pressure and direction, is it really that profit to strip Lebanon of its strongest power? So who will pay attention to the country? The importance of Lebanon lies in its strength of resistance. Repeated appearances of repetitive envoys – these days Barak, Ortagus, Graham – and the Lebanese presence in the circle of attention all stems from resistance.
Without the importance and impact of resistance to Lebanon and regional politics, it would not have attracted all this attention. Nor am I keen to remove it from my arm. Nor have we attempted to scatter community unity around resistance, to drag the country into the Civil War, to distantly redirect it towards other goals and choices, away from the central mission of land resistance and liberation.
But the Lebanese state is hollow and all these concepts are empty. Forget once the party defends a state or sect. Suppose resistance protects itself with a weapon. He has never interfered in domestic affairs through arms or sought control through them. Suppose you protect it with these weapons. Assuming peace and war decisions, the state claims it is not even in the hands of Israel’s enemy.
Can resistance be expected to abandon the very element of strength that it uses to protect itself and be exposed to violations, genocides, or extinction? Who will be responsible if this happens? Can the nation prevent Lebanon from destroying Lebanon? When it is stripped of strength, is it an enemy openly declared the creation of “Great Israel” and “New Middle East”? Isn’t this at least a possibility?