On the Myth of an Israeli Lebanon

Hezbollah deceitfully sensationalizes the ambitions of its opponents, claiming that they are striving for an "Israeli Lebanon." This term is often invoked to frighten the people of Lebanon and force them into a lethal binary choice between Israel and the resistance state. Sheikh Naim Qassem, the man who now speaks for Hezbollah, used it in his latest speech, warning us that the emergence of an "Israeli Lebanon" is the aim of this war. The head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, Deputy Mohammad Raad, once explained this notion: It is a Lebanon of nightclubs, dancing, banks, and financial and commercial services. Hezbollah portrays this "Israeli Lebanon" as a politically and economically subjugated state that has no values or morals; it allows our authentic culture to wane in favor of an imperialistic culture that has no roots or ties to "our causes."
However, Lebanon is undergoing a catastrophic economic collapse, its infrastructure is falling apart, and the state's foundations, institutions, and constitution are being eroded under the weight of the "resistance Lebanon," leading us to ask: What if this alleged "Israeli Lebanon" is actually a better alternative?
Let us delve deeper into this Lebanon as Hezbollah characterizes it, rather than giving in to fear of what it represents and stands for.
Hezbollah's first objection to this Lebanon is that it would, in the medium or long term, become part of the architecture of regional peace. Should seeking a Lebanon that chooses peace instead of perpetual conflict be taboo? Is it an accusation one should repudiate? Wouldn't this outcome enable the country to channel its resources toward building a robust economy, developing effective institutions, and reinforcing its vibrant civil society, as well as allow the Lebanese to turn their country into a regional hub for trade, innovation, and investment?
Is joining the axis of peace with Israel and all neighboring countries not an opportunity for Lebanon to be on the side of regional stability instead of a battleground where foreign forces wage their conflicts?
Let’s be honest. The Lebanese experienced what Hezbollah calls "Israeli Lebanon" during the Rafic Hariri era. The project he pursued as prime minister provided the country with an opportunity to rebuild and develop its state, and this era witnessed an economic and cultural renaissance.
Was this project not portrayed as a covert Israeli project? Wasn’t Hariri assassinated after a massive wave of accusations of treason?
Even intra-Lebanese reconciliation and the promotion of pluralism seem more conceivable in "Israeli Lebanon" than in "resistance Lebanon."
Hezbollah also warns us that the “resistance” would be disarmed in "Israeli Lebanon." However, is doing away with militias and a strong, unified national army that operates under the authority of the state- a genuine safeguard of its sovereignty- not a basic function of any state? By the way, nothing would prevent Lebanon from maintaining its commitment to Palestine. However, it would support Palestine through diplomatic and humanitarian channels, working alongside legitimate Arab, international, and Palestinian actors without sacrificing Lebanon's future as is happening now.
This Lebanon would not simply sacrifice its identity or interests to ally with Israel. No Lebanese political faction favors this out, neither secretly nor openly. Raising this prospect is meant to prevent us from recognizing that the path Hezbollah is taking, that of eternal resistance, militarization, and isolation, has destroyed and is destroying Lebanon, as we can all clearly see.
Indeed, Hezbollah's vision for Lebanon as a center for resistance has depleted the country's resources, stifled its potential, and undermined Lebanon’s social fabric for decades. Hezbollah's insistence on assuming the role of Lebanon's protector and defender through armed resistance has given rise to a failed state that continues to prioritize armed struggle over good governance, development, and social progress.
"Resistance Lebanon" oversaw the collapse of the economy, and it has essentially killed any chance for recovery through its imposition of near-total isolation from the region. As a result, regional states have stopped investing and providing services in Lebanon and their people have stopped flocking to the country as tourists.
Even Lebanon's sovereignty, which Hezbollah pretends is justification for its armed resistance, has been crushed by the militia's dominance over the state and its imposition of decisions on war and peace, leaving both the state and the country in tatters.
Equally concerning is that "resistance Lebanon" has stifled Lebanon's unique pluralism and openness. Anything that isn't linked to resistance is seen as paving the way for an Israeli era. This applies to culture, education, development, and the economy, which have all been weakened to allow for the narrative of resistance’s hegemony.
The myth of "Israeli Lebanon" is a means by which Hezbollah instills fear, stifles debate, and corners the Lebanese by presenting resistance as their only option. However, the truth is that this so-called "Israeli Lebanon" is not the real threat to Lebanon's future. Maintaining the resistance model, with all the horrific outcomes it has engendered, is the real danger.
The "Israeli Lebanon" Hezbollah warns of is a normal Lebanon, which is exactly what the Lebanese need. Hezbollah is free to choose who to frame this Lebanon, but it is a country that chooses life, growth, and opportunities instead of eternal resistance!