In the Middle East, the dynamics of conflict are shaped not only by the balance of power between states but also by the historical memory of societies, faith-based values, and relationships of mutual trust. Lebanon, one of the most striking examples of this multi-layered structure, has a complex social reality, having historically been home to diverse religious and sectarian communities living side by side.<\/p>\n
Recent developments in the region have made Lebanon’s position even more critical. The military plans and destruction carried out by Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iran, and Syria are forcing the countries of the region to remain on high alert. The Lebanese people are no different. Despite the heavy price paid, they understand that surrender is not a solution and that resistance is a necessity. There are many in Lebanon who think, “If you disarm, you will be killed; if you keep your weapon, you at least have a chance to defend yourself.”<\/p>\n
Historical memory: From 1982 to Karbala<\/strong><\/p>\n Israel’s 1982 entry into Beirut remains vivid in the public’s memory. This experience of occupation also serves as historical proof of the failure of a disarmament strategy. Consequently, these events reinforce the belief that armed resistance against foreign powers is an essential security policy.<\/p>\n Proponents of resistance emphasize that this struggle is not only a military one but also an ideological and moral responsibility. Within the Shia community, the teachings of Karbala and Imam Hussein stand out as fundamental points of reference for a culture of honor and resilience. Therefore, the option to “lay down arms” is seen not just as a military weakening but also as a historical betrayal.<\/p>\n Today, Israel has advanced to within 8 kilometers of Damascus and controls Jabal al-Sheikh (Mount Hermon). It has conducted airstrikes on Iran, is bombing cities and ports in Yemen, killing civilians and Hezbollah members in Lebanon, committing genocide in Gaza, and has de facto annexed most of the West Bank. Of course, this is not Israel’s war alone; it is part of a coordinated assault on the region by Western imperialism.<\/p>\n UN Resolution 1701 was designed for Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, leaving demilitarized zones south of the Litani River for only the Lebanese Army and the UN Peacekeeping Force, UNIFIL. Following the ceasefire declared on November 27, Israel not only failed to withdraw from Lebanese territory but also destroyed places it could not hit during the war. Israel has not complied with the agreement signed with the Lebanese government and continues its violations of Lebanon’s airspace, sea, land, and sovereignty. Throughout this period, Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket. The Lebanese army, for its part, did not fire a single shot even during the war.<\/p>\n Why isn’t Hezbollah retaliating?<\/strong><\/p>\n Hezbollah’s silence is not exactly passivity. In reality, suffering major blows and largely losing its land bridge with its patron, Iran, has also reduced its options. However, it continues to regroup and seek support, declaring that it is pursuing a policy of strategic patience to create space for diplomacy.<\/p>\n A fragile balance was maintained until the Lebanese government’s latest move. U.S. envoy Tom Barrack rejected the document presented by the Lebanese President, the first three articles of which demanded that Israel stop its occupation and withdraw. He even reportedly tore up this text and presented non-negotiable, unilateral demands in its place.<\/p>\n During this process, the Lebanese government convened the Council of Ministers at the Baabda Palace [the official residence of the President of Lebanon] and placed only the disarmament of Hezbollah on the agenda. However, the decision does not cover all groups and targets the only entity capable of providing even a modicum of deterrence against Israel.<\/p>\n The government’s decision includes an instruction to the army to “disarm everyone” within four months. This was met with ridicule in Lebanon, as the difficulty of neutering a structure historically much stronger than the Lebanese army in such a short time is obvious. Hezbollah, in turn, declared the decision “null and void,” sending a clear message to the government: “This decision has no binding authority.”<\/p>\n Hezbollah argues that if it were to lay down its arms, there would be nothing to stop Israel from occupying Beirut and radical groups like ISIS from being unleashed upon Lebanon. These fears resonate with the Lebanese public. This is because in 2015, when ISIS groups infiltrated Lebanon from Syria and raided villages, it was Hezbollah, not the Lebanese army, that repelled them, and the existence of a widespread sense of gratitude within society is undeniable.<\/p>\n The legitimacy of resistance<\/strong><\/p>\n Defenders of the resistance say that these weapons belong not only to Hezbollah but to the people of Lebanon. Furthermore, the relative weakness of the state raises serious doubts about its ability to monopolize the use of force. From this perspective, even if the organization were to disarm, the emergence of another resistance movement is highly probable. It would be illogical to think that a people who have lost their lands, homes, families, and commercial lives would abandon armed struggle.<\/p>\n The issue of disarmament in Lebanon is not merely a debate over security strategy; it is a multidimensional issue where social memory, identity, and the perception of regional threats are intertwined. A significant portion of the population, especially the Shia community in Lebanon, views armed resistance not just as a political choice but as an existential necessity. Indeed, the Shia in Lebanon are becoming an increasingly important demographic and economic force, yet their representation in the state is far from proportional.<\/p>\n In conclusion, it is insufficient to evaluate the disarmament debate in Lebanon solely on a military or diplomatic level. For the growing Shia population, which is not a full stakeholder in the Lebanese state, the options are either to become a fully integrated part of the Lebanese state or, after some time, for the organization to continue under a different name [literally: “change its sign”]. Of course, the dream is the first option, but the reality is the Middle East.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the Middle East, the dynamics of conflict are shaped not only by the balance of power between states but also by the historical memory of societies, faith-based values, and relationships of mutual trust. Lebanon, one of the most striking examples of this multi-layered structure, has a complex social reality, having historically been home to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":10843,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"gallery","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[1692,660,569,812,7840,927,1247,3908,531,10456,2673],"class_list":["post-10842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-gallery","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-axis-of-resistance","tag-hezbollah","tag-isis","tag-israel","tag-jabal-al-sheikh","tag-lebanon","tag-resistance","tag-shia-muslims","tag-syria","tag-tom-barrack","tag-weapon","post_format-post-format-gallery"],"yoast_head":"\n