October 25, 2024
Nasser Kandil
The martyrdom of Lebanese Army Major Muhammad Farhat and two soldiers in an Israeli airstrike on a Lebanese military post in Yatar should unify the Lebanese people behind their army – not merely to be used by some as a banner to undermine the resistance. Major Farhat is the epitome of the national army’s mission in any country. Just a year ago, Lebanese witnessed his unwavering courage as he defended the nation’s borders, willing to sacrifice his life for the land. Many still recall the video in which he, weapon in hand, instructed UNIFIL soldiers to relay a message to the occupation forces: “For the last time, move that barbed wire back, or we’ll handle it differently. We are ready for anything here; we’re defending our land”. He then told his troops, “Soldier, when I say load up, you load up”, signalling his readiness to confront the occupiers.
There has never been a question of support for the Lebanese army; every Lebanese cherishes an army that is strong and dignified, its soldiers and officers embodying unwavering patriotism and a readiness to defend the homeland. The army’s limitations have stemmed not from lack of will but from lack of means. Yet, those Lebanese and foreign officials who frequently present the army as a substitute for the resistance have done so only to keep Lebanon defenceless against aggression. None would dare suggest that the occupying entity on Lebanon’s southern border is peaceful or without ambitions toward Lebanon’s land and water. Nor would they claim it respects international appeals or laws. The sole deterrent capable of preserving Lebanon’s safety is a force strong enough to stop this entity from advancing its ambitions. Yet, none of these figures – Lebanese, Arab, or Western – has moved to equip the Lebanese army with the necessary means to defend itself effectively.
Along our borders stand enemy soldiers with maps stitched onto their uniforms, depicting Lebanese territory extending to the Litani River. Their defence minister, Yoav Gallant, suggested expelling the resistance to “beyond the Litani” – which he described as their northern boundary. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even held up this same map at the UN, showing Lebanese land claimed by the occupying state. Their demands to U.S. mediators go beyond targeting the resistance; they want to resurrect the security controls and privileges embedded in the 1983 May 17 Agreement, an imposition of security oversight on Lebanon. The world pressures Lebanon to sell its sovereignty, as if it were to force an honourable woman into shameful deeds to avoid being violated, rather than providing her with the means to defend herself. They do not dare to confront the predator, leaving Lebanon vulnerable if ever stripped of its resistance, restricting the army to security operations rather than allowing it to grow into a true, capable force.
Yes, some argue it is unnatural for a state to have armed forces outside its official army. But if Lebanese, patriotic individuals make this case, they must also recognize that it is far less natural to coexist with a ruthless, criminal adversary who harbours ambitions against Lebanon. This adversary is not deterred by any power in the world, and a nation’s defence begins with arming its military to protect itself. A principled opposition to the resistance’s weapons should come from true national sentiment, not from a submission to Western influence seeking to uphold Israel’s advantage and aspirations for Lebanon’s land, waters, skies, and sovereignty. Examine the record of those who promote the army as a substitute for the resistance: how many have advocated for mandatory enlistment to build a capable force, or demanded improved wages for officers and soldiers, or opened recruitment to reach at least 100,000 active troops? How many have prioritised Lebanon’s need for modern air defence systems, anti-ship missiles to protect its waters, and ground-to-ground missiles to establish a firepower balance with the enemy’s air force?
When we see such positions from advocates of the “army over resistance” approach, we might believe in their national loyalty. In their absence, however, it becomes clear that these voices are but echoes of Western calls to keep Lebanon vulnerable to occupation ambitions. Thus, we hold fast to the resistance, which has preserved our nation’s strength and dignity in this era. We remember all too well what Lebanon endured between 1949 and 1969 with a weakened army and will not accept a return to those days. If a certain parliamentarian believes Lebanon should return to that period, he should consult the Lebanese Army’s archives on the conditions in the South at that time before he speaks further nonsense.
