The Occupation Remains… But What of the Army, the Resistance, and the People?

February 20, 2025

Nasser Kandil

• There is no longer a need for analysis, the occupation’s presence in Lebanese territory holds no real security considerations. There is no buffer zone, no strategic necessity. Modern technologies offer greater security returns with fewer risks. The reason is clear: an American-Israeli insistence on declaring victory, a desire to remind Lebanon that it remains under Israel’s boot, and a message that the U.S. will not facilitate a dignified exit for Lebanon from this war, despite all the sweet talk, despite the clear terms of agreements, the nature of their sponsors, and the identity of their guarantors. All of it turns to worthless ink when faced with American and Israeli intransigence. It is well known that Israel needs a victory image to pacify an increasingly restless public, a populace that questions the credibility of its leaders and views the entire war, from the Red Sea to Gaza to the villages of South Lebanon, as a colossal failure.

It is also evident that Israel’s continued presence on the hills overlooking southern Lebanon and northern Palestine is meant to prevent the erection of massive banners and towering flags that settlers might see – symbols that would deter those few who are considering a return. For these reasons a near-term withdrawal is unlikely.

• Meanwhile, despite ministerial statements about equipping the army, affirming the state’s responsibility over war and peace, and pledging to defend the nation and liberate occupied land, all of this remains meaningless unless translated into action when the nation demands it. The state is firmly committed to diplomacy, which ultimately means the occupation stays.

As for the resistance, which is being pressured through the leverage of reconstruction, it exercises patience, avoids impulsive reactions, and grants every opportunity before acting. It will not rush into targeting occupation forces anytime soon – something the state prefers, and something opponents of the resistance both promote and hope for. But does this mean the occupation has secured victory, that it will remain safely entrenched in the Lebanese land it has seized, in addition to the territories it already holds?

• Let us imagine, then, what will unfold – something akin to 1982, though on a smaller scale given the limited occupied area compared to the near-total occupation of Lebanon back then. Yet, there is a critical difference: today, a far broader segment of the population is prepared to engage in resistance, armed with deep experience and advanced capabilities.

Over 300 towns and villages will see the occupied hills looming before their residents and visiting relatives from Beirut and its suburbs. Young men will drive past these positions, seething at the silence, their blood boiling with the shame of inaction. Suppose only ten from each village or town take up arms, this alone would mean thousands. Unlike the millions of Arab youths who have never encountered the occupation firsthand, these men have battled it face-to-face, shattered the fear barrier, and discovered their own superiority over its forces. They know how to use an array of conventional and advanced weapons. They are well-versed in forming combat and resistance cells.

Day by day, week by week, resistance groups will quietly emerge. They will conduct reconnaissance, stockpile weapons in secrecy, and operate outside any formal organisational identity. And then, suddenly, one day not far from now, news will break of an operation targeting an Israeli position, of an ambush striking an occupation patrol, of Israeli soldiers killed or wounded. How will Israel react?

• As always, the occupation will go into a frenzy. It will bomb sites north of the Litani, claim they belong to Hezbollah, and hold it responsible. It will know, however, that the precision and execution of the attack bear the hallmarks of Hezbollah’s 1990s-era expertise. Yet, needing to respond, it will escalate further – raiding nearby villages, storming homes, arresting young men, interrogating them, even targeting Lebanese army and UNIFIL positions. This will happen repeatedly.

Even if the resistance’s adversaries get their wish, if the state remains passive, if Hezbollah stays composed, after months of sporadic clashes, Israel will find itself waging a full-scale invasion of villages south of the Litani, citing the presence of resistance infrastructure. It will resemble the 1972 invasion of September 16-17, when the Lebanese army and Palestinian resistance forces fought back, and Sergeant Ahmad Ismail made his heroic last stand, destroying seven Israeli tanks with his own before his ammunition ran out and he fell as a martyr. Lebanese Army Brigadier General Joseph Roukoz later documented the battle in detail, highlighting the clear and effective military orders given to successfully manage the confrontation as he was one of the officers in that battle.

• Does anyone expect Hezbollah to remain idle if such an invasion repeats itself? Or will it declare Resolution 1701 null and void, deem itself free from all constraints, and unleash its battle-hardened elite forces onto the battlefield – backed by missile barrages and drone strikes to suppress Israeli firepower? Do you truly believe this scenario is mere fantasy?

• Do not build castles of salt upon the shifting sands of the shore.