The recent cabinet sessions of the Lebanese government were anything but easy; they were a turning point that redefined the domestic balance of power and resolved momentous questions that had not been debated since the end of the civil war. That is why Thomas Barrack’s intervention was at the heart of the dispute among Lebanese officials.
At the time of writing, the government has reinforced several decisions that can serve as a basis for future action. According to the announcement by Lebanese Information Minister Paul Morcos, these include: requesting an operational plan on the restriction of armament to the state, ensuring stability and reconstruction, and, most importantly, approving the provision that arms be limited to the state and that the army be deployed in the south; initiating the demarcation of international borders with Israel and Syria; all of this, the government says, is an “approval of the goals of the American paper, not its details”!
The fraught debate in the cabinet went on for a long time, with many objections made and with Hezbollah’s ministers walking out before the objectives were approved.
However, why did the American paper create so much ?
Simply put, some believe the paper is reasonable, even suitable, given the timing of its proposal- it was put forward following the defeat of Hezbollah and the regional axis it belongs to, the evisceration of its organizational structure, and the exposure of all its operational and intelligence zones. Those who hold this view have strong arguments within Lebanon.
Others, however, believe that the framework it puts forward is unworkable and that the paper cannot be implemented any time soon, given its substance. They fear it will necessarily lead to confrontation, whether among the Lebanese themselves, or between the army or political parties, and Hezbollah’s armed forces. Some have gone so far as to deem it impossible to disarm Hezbollah without collateral damage and clashes, whether brief or prolonged, with the group. Advocates of this view prefer to be granted more time to deal with the issue gradually and rationally, so as to avoid dragging Lebanon into a domestic conflict, especially since Hezbollah’s support base is still reeling from the shock and trauma of defeat.
Regional and international interest in Lebanon’s fate and future is genuine and serious. However, support comes with conditions that are extremely simple: the past phase, with its slogans and poetry, its speeches and ideologies, must be left behind. Today, nations live in an era of the strong state that has the capacity to make and enforce decisions.
It is clear that Hezbollah is now confronted with a major international push that it seeks to defuse through two tracks. The first is to delay, in order to take the wind out of the international momentum in anticipation of a regional shift or the eruption of other crises that could distract the United States from Lebanon. This is evident from the cabinet sessions and discussions Hezbollah has participated in; it is stalling to prevent the resolution of the debate around its arms for as long as possible.
Second: grievances and dejection within its base to close ranks and mobilize support. In the exchange between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Health Minister Rakan Nasser Al-Din, for example, the latter threatened the prime minister with “the street,” to which Salam replied: “There is a street for a street.”
Hezbollah pushing its supporters to take to the street is a possibility, but it would come at a steep price, especially as it now faces fundamental questions (that had long been buried) coming from its own base. The party is being tested by part of its devastated constituency, and thus, an insurgency against the state is possible, even likely. Indeed, it is openly proposed by some of the party’s officials and media figures.
In conclusion, when we speak of Hezbollah’s weapons, what matters to us is their catastrophic impact on the region. As for Lebanon, its own people know best how to deal with the details. The world has grown weary of this unchecked lawlessness, tolerated for decades by Lebanese officials who granted it legitimacy and civilian cover (the Mar Mikhael Agreement being a major example), allowing Hezbollah to expand in the region and beyond.
Who will seize this international opportunity to save Lebanon and its people? The Lebanese deserve to join the journey of emerging developmental states and benefit from this trajectory. A human being is born to live, learn, work, and thrive, not to embrace a culture of death, nor to wake and sleep to the smell of gunpowder. This is an opportunity to set out on a path toward development and prosperity that will not come again.
