LONDON – Both Lebanon’s Islamic resistance and the Israeli occupation entity are preparing for the next war, but it will be different from the current one. At this point, the Resistance plans to end the war and not start a new one. This regional phase is about ending this war, not starting a new one. The resistance groups are complying with the decision to withdraw arms south of the Litani River out of commitment to the agreement signed on November 27 with the state, not because they believe the other side is in the right.
Since the other side has not complied with this ceasefire agreement at all, the resistance side also has the right not to abide by the ceasefire agreement. The agreement is considered invalid because the other party did not honor it. When it becomes absolutely clear that the occupying actors do not exercise restraint and continue to commit all forms of violations, a response is required. They commit these violations even when there is no response, justifying them with a variety of excuses, including claiming that resistance is growing.
Another equation emerges here. Strategic patience ensures a general policy of continued growth if the erosion inflicted on the resistance by the enemy is less than the rate of growth of the resistance and recovery of its capabilities. This is despite the enemy’s expansionist ambitions.
However, if the pace of strikes increases and losses and erosion exceed growth, the equation may change, and resistance forces may decide to respond in any way they see fit. At that point, all-out war could break out.
Lebanon is a special case compared to other resistance fronts. Each front has its own conditions, circumstances and methods of resistance. Although the resistance represents a segment of the population in Lebanon, many political parties do not participate in the resistance. A large portion of the population does not believe in the resistance option and even colludes against it.
It is very difficult to reach consensus in this area, so the Resistance takes this into account and strives to maintain some level of majority support. However, when enemy encroachments make the need for resistance a national necessity, the domestic atmosphere becomes ideal for coordinating resistance actions and creating deterrence. The goal is to form a comprehensive balance of national deterrence.
There are still calls for disarmament within Lebanon, mainly from Christian parties. When popular demands are expressed in the streets and call for a response, the response becomes a popular demand, rather than a unilateral decision by one party to drag the country into war, which resistance aims to avoid.
The Lebanese state can say yes or no to the Americans coming at the request of the Israeli entity. The decision to comply or comply with America’s demands rests in the hands of the nation. If a nation sacrifices its sovereignty and independence to satisfy America’s demands, it is subjugation.
As for the Resistance, it has never started a war. Its actions were always a reaction to the imposed war. These are defensive wars, and defensive wars are completely justified. Sometimes, when enemy attacks result in damage and destruction, resisting forces may choose to delay, postpone, or retreat, not out of weakness, but in preparation for a stage when they can establish a deterrence equation in the so-called strategic balance. Should we rely on the enemy’s supposed “good intentions” or absolve him of all crimes?