Hezbollah, as we have heard from its leader and lawmakers, remains adamant that its weapons will not be handed over, regardless of the terms and no matter the circumstances. It has supplemented this insistence with threats, both direct and indirect, against anyone with the urge to suggest otherwise.
Having just been released after spending 41 years in a French prison a few days ago, Georges Ibrahim Abdallah informed us that Israel was “on its last legs.” The Hezbollah deputies there to welcome him nodded in approval.
That is how, armed with “rigorous” (and scientific, as a Marxist might add) analysis, the party concluded its preparations for Tuesday’s cabinet session, which is set to address Hezbollah’s weapons and “the extension of the state's sovereignty across Lebanon’s territory,” an objective laid out in its ministerial state.
The fact is that the matter party’s posture is pretty astonishing: the military force that was battered continues to speak with the voice of an army marching from one victory to another, anointing itself the “defender of Lebanon” - it just has failed, mind you, to even defend itself. If all of this suggests a degree of detachment from reality, this detachment can probably be explained by a deeper, older detachment from Lebanon itself. That is precisely what leads some of the party’s critics to consider it an Iranian actor. If it is true that this characterization is imprecise, since the party is Lebanese, it nonetheless remains that Iran is behind this bizarre insistence on keeping its weapons.
Still, other factors also help explain this strange state of affairs. Chief among them is the party looking to what the late Fatah leader Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) used to call the “strategy of embroilment.” As for what this “strategy” entails, it is simple: armed factions - Palestinian then, Lebanese now - carry out the most minor and fruitless of military operations so that Israel retaliates with the brutality it is notorious for and drags the Lebanese state into the line of fire. Thus, the circle of participants in this major confrontation expands, and both Lebanon’s state and society are entangled in a battle against their will.
The party could, if it pursued this strategy, which needs only an arsenal, and managed to draw deadly attacks by Israel in retaliation, win the ultimate national debate, with all others inconsequential in comparison. In this scenario, everyone would be made aware that the “Zionists’ covetous ambitions” can only be dealt with through armed struggle and resistance. Thus, events would confirm the party’s analysis and vindicate its worldview.
If we add the other, newer pretext that the new authorities in Damascus pose a threat to non-Sunni Arab minorities, another claim (implicit or explicit) in defense of its insistence on maintaining weapons is added.
All in all, Lebanon - as a state, people, and society - becomes nothing more than a tactical instrument of Hezbollah’s strategy; meanwhile, the “culture” of martyrdom and sacrifice resurges, repelling celebrations, festivals, and any other event that is inappropriate in a “society of resistance.”
It seems that if it were to play out, this scenario could prove devastating this time around; indeed, as many Lebanese have warned, the cost could be so high if not fatal. There is no fearmongering in the assertion that the balance of power is severely skewed and that the criminal Israeli government standing on the other side cannot be deterred from resorting to ultraviolence.
Since October 7, it has become increasingly clear that Israel’s primary goal is to expand its security belt. The indications to this effect have been increasing in Gaza and Syria; accordingly, it is not unthinkable for the territories of this “belt” to be turned into scorched earth, should doing so seem necessary. There is concern that the current lull in its other theaters of combat could be a prelude to the other clashes being condensed into a war in Lebanon.
With this un-relenting state of war that takes after Netanyahu’s personal conditions and ethics, there is no real regional or international deterrent standing in its way. Russia, China, Türkiye, and other ambivalent powers often condemn Israel, but they will also often look the other way when Israeli violations occur.
We already see the warning signs: Israeli drones tirelessly roam Lebanon’s skies, shelling of the South and the Bekaa Valley has resumed, the assassinations are ongoing, and the occupied hills remain occupied. Although Israel is now being condemned in an unprecedented manner across the globe amid global outrage over Gaza and the starvation of its children, this indignation does not extend to attacks on Lebanon and Hezbollah.
Following current developments, one becomes increasingly inclined to believe that Israel’s daily statements about Hezbollah’s strength and efforts to rebuild its arsenal are little more than an echo of the rhetoric the US used in the months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it was claimed that Iraq had had “the fourth-largest army in the world,” before ultimately collapsing faster than anyone had expected.
From what we can tell, Israel seems to be hoping to stir a conflict based on some solid calculations, and Hezbollah hopes for the same, based on mythical conceptions, delusion and a desire for both its suicide and our slaughter, leaving us in a perilous state of limbo that indecisive politics cannot get us out of. So, was President Aoun’s recent speech a prelude to a firm decision on Tuesday? Or was it merely a formality that will be followed by the resumption of indecision as existential threats continue to close in on us?
