February 19, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• The deadline has passed, and the American guarantor has aligned with the Israeli occupier’s “legitimate” violation of the agreement, along with the violation of Lebanese sovereignty and the theft of strategic Lebanese positions, placing them under occupation. Meanwhile, some Lebanese, invoking weakness and helplessness, speak of the necessity of adapting to an era of Israeli power – power backed by the United States and wielded through threats of war, destruction, and massacres. They ignore the fact that this supposedly strong Israel failed to occupy a single Lebanese village or town during the war. Yet, during the ceasefire implementation period, it managed to seize 47 villages and towns – banking on diplomacy and appeals to the American sponsor. Still, there is no objection to diplomacy, as long as it is understood that it is the internal political balance of power in Lebanon, not the military balance between the resistance and the occupation, that compels the resistance to take a step back and allow the state, which claims it wishes to shoulder the responsibility, to attempt to reclaim its violated sovereignty. However, this is not an opportunity to experiment with or devise corrupt formulas that will only result in further erosion of sovereignty.
• The corrupt prescription, peddled by shortsighted individuals feigning wisdom, suggests that the resistance should disarm to supposedly strengthen the state’s diplomatic position in demanding Israeli withdrawal. It’s as if the American, who shields Israel, were preoccupied with arguments, excuses, and the power of logic rather than being the very architect who drafted the agreement and then abandoned it. Americans drafted the agreement because, at its inception, it offered a sought-after escape from the failure that had beset the Israeli army on the battlefronts – not for any love for Lebanon or a desire to safeguard its sovereignty. The negotiations dragged on for weeks under Israeli terms dictated through the Americans, until the occupation forces could no longer sustain the fight or endure the consequences of the escalating exchange of fire – one that, by November 24, had reached a peak beyond Israel’s capacity to bear. And yet, the same American guarantor that brokered the agreement sanctioned its violation by extending the deadline and is now enabling the occupation to seize Lebanese territory, merely to indulge Israeli whims.
• Those advocating for the putrid disarmament prescription failed in marketing the falsehood that the agreement implicitly called for disarmament. Their claim crumbled when Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, the agreement’s chief Lebanese negotiator, stated otherwise – a position that even his Israeli counterpart, Amos Hochstein, failed to refute. Repeated Israeli statements reinforced Berri’s stance, as did the words of President Joseph Aoun, who oversaw the negotiations prior to the agreement’s signing and supervised its implementation as army commander before becoming president. All sources converge on the undeniable fact that the agreement applies only south of the Litani River, with the issue of arms to be addressed through a national dialogue on Lebanon’s defense strategy.
With their false narrative debunked, the proponents of disarmament devised a new absurdity: surrender to Israel’s demands to avoid its aggression. Yet history has shown that every concession to Israel is met with further demands.
• We are not here to argue for an immediate return to war or resistance, but to highlight two case studies where this corrupt prescription was applied: Syria’s new regime and the Palestinian Authority.
Syria’s new rulers abandoned even the right to declare their rejection of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. They forfeited the right to protest the destruction of Syria’s military capabilities and turned a blind eye to Israeli incursions into Syrian territory. And despite the immense services they rendered the occupation, toppling the previous government, expelling Iran and Hezbollah from Syria, severing resistance supply lines to Lebanon and Palestine, blocking Palestinian factions from acquiring weapons, and even barring Hamas from issuing statements from Damascus; none of this earned them Israeli leniency. Even Turkey, a NATO powerhouse, could not shield the emerging Syrian government from Israeli humiliation, despite its diplomatic efforts to ease the pressure exerted by the occupation – a move intended both as appreciation for services rendered and for its stance in not disturbing Israel’s security.
As for the Palestinian Authority, its story is well known, and its ending just as familiar. It transformed its security apparatus into an auxiliary force for the Israeli occupation, hunting down resistance fighters while tolerating relentless settlement expansion and the Judaisation of Jerusalem, ultimately achieving nothing more than further encroachment and bullying.
• The proponents of the putrid prescription for disarmament know they have no answer to the crucial question: What if their prescription fails, as expected, and Israeli demands escalate, always backed by American cover? Will it serve them to later admit they were stupid? Will their apologies undo the damage? Is a nation’s fate to be decided by such recklessness and irresponsibility?
They peddle their proposal as an escape from responsibility, unwilling to confront the reality that their bet on the United States has failed. Time and again, it has been proven that America thinks with an Israeli mind and sees through Israeli eyes. Anyone who prioritises national interests must not base their calculations on American actions or promises. Look at Ukraine – it is paying the price for the same stupidity, as is all of Europe. Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of others before learning our lesson? And is this not a déjà vu of 1982, when the fathers and grandfathers of today’s disarmament advocates claimed that Israel sought nothing more than the expulsion of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation? On August 21, 1982, the PLO left Lebanon, but Israel remained until May 25, 2000, when the resistance drove it out at gunpoint.
• The outcome of prolonged occupation is clear, and even some American experts are beginning to acknowledge the inevitable: the occupied territories will be used as a bargaining chip in a so-called peace agreement that involves normalisation and security, cultural, and media arrangements all of which will erase any remnants of hostility toward Israel, just as in the ill-fated May 17 Agreement, if not worse. Our alternative is diplomatic, but not for those who promote corrupt and poisonous prescriptions. Rather, it is for the state – for the president, the prime minister, and the government. It is rooted in the ministerial statement that calls for equipping the army to defend and liberate. Why not take the first step in this path by announcing Lebanon’s intent to acquire an air defense system? This is a sovereign right of every nation and can be pursued immediately. The procurement should prioritise Western suppliers while remaining open to Russian and Chinese alternatives, exploring specifications, prices, and purchase conditions. Watch how swiftly external pressures mount to deter Lebanon from this move, not for any reason other than that it would inconvenience Israel, which wants Lebanese airspace to gallivant about and remain open for its unfettered bombing campaigns. But here Lebanon must persist and take practical steps, just as Turkey, a NATO member, has acquired a Russian air defense system, as have Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Lebanon will quickly realise its strength the moment it signals its intent to acquire a deterrent force that Israel fears. And Lebanon will find that it can, if it chooses, leverage this capability to secure a complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese lands and an end to aerial violations.
• This is a prescription you’ve never tried before, and there’s nothing to lose by giving it a chance. So, why not take the opportunity?
