Yasser Arafat once said that he would accept the liberation of even a single inch of Palestinian land. In response, Hassan Nasrallah “asked:” Isn’t there a Khalid al-Islambuli among the Palestinian? Islambuli, of course, was the terrorist who assassinated President Anwar Sadat and whom the mullah regime in Iran “honored” by naming a street in Tehran after him.
This episode should be recalled in light of the current wave of hysteria: nasty rhetoric, gratuitous accusations of treason, and threats of assassinating senior Lebanese officials. Where are they coming from? From some officials within Hezbollah, the military-security organization established by Iran in the mid-1980s to defend the Iranian regime and its interests.
When Iran dragged its Lebanese proxy into a war of “support” to avenge Ali Khamenei, “the party” turned the battlefield into a card in Iran’s hands and lost any independence from its handlers in Tehran. At the same time, the Lebanese government, while distancing itself from this war, made clear that it could not ignore the consequences.
From the very outset of the Iranian-Israeli war on Lebanese soil, the contours of an impending catastrophe began to emerge. The government translated its ministerial statement into action, stressing that reclaiming our land demands rejecting suicidal approaches, and launching political and diplomatic initiatives instead. Given the severe imbalance of power, rights cannot be protected through perpetual war decided by a foreign party for its own ends.
The presidential initiative for direct negotiations with the enemy is a courageous step, as the real catastrophe lies in the return of occupation, not in negotiation. Committed to a ceasefire and to defending the negotiation initiative, President Joseph Aoun declared: “I am ready to go anywhere to liberate my land and save my people and my country.”
Madness, and denial, followed. Both reflect an advanced stage of a culture that glorifies death, which Hezbollah has elevated above the protection of lives and land. Nawaf al-Moussawi declared: “There will no longer be an acceptable president... he is no more important than Anwar Sadat.” MP Hassan Fadlallah made threats: “Whoever wants to be another Antoine Lahad (the commander of the South Lebanon Army allied with Israel during the previous occupation), we will fight him as we fought Israel.”
Denial and detachment from reality reach their peak with Sheikh Naim Qassem: “The battlefield has the final word, and successful politics is that which draws strength from its results to force the enemy into submission.” He seems to have overlooked the fact that the enemy, which had occupied five hills before March 2, now occupies 55 towns across 500 square kilometers. They have been wiped off the map, with their 300,000 residents uprooted. Yet Mahmoud Qamati demands nothing less from the state than an apology; or else, it will be overthrown.
It is clear that Hezbollah seeks to entrench a culture that has shaken Shiite consciousness, almost collectively. It is an approach that denies facts, the value of human life, and the role of the individual; it reduces the annihilation of Lebanese towns to mere “collateral damage” of the battle to defend the “greatness” of Iran’s project. Indeed, Mohammed Raad considers “lamenting losses, victims, and destruction... nothing but gratuitous incitement, dancing on the wounds of the honorable, and a vile exploitation of the enemy’s crimes.”
Aoun’s speech, his “second oath,” tore apart this narrative of denial, death-glorification, and casual accusations of treason. He affirmed citizens’ right to security and stability needed to unleash the country’s creative potential, rejecting the transformation of citizens into fodder for endless conflicts. He condemned the notion “that Lebanese lives should be sacrificed for external agendas,” and rejected “periodic, gratuitous death justified by foreign causes.”
Indeed, Lebanon was dragged into three devastating wars over two decades to serve Iran’s interests: the July 2006 war managed by Qassem Soleimani; the Gaza support war decided by Esmail Qaani; and the war of support for Iran in revenge for Khamenei. These wars brought recurring, needless death to the Lebanese: around 15,000 killed, some 40,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed, and the forced displacement of two million people, threatening demographic change.
Iran has allowed Israel to bring upon the Shiite community a calamity comparable to the Palestinian Nakba of 1948. More troubling still, within this same culture of glorifying death, it has become forbidden to discuss the outcomes of these wars, the costs that society cannot afford.
One state, one constitution, and one armed force to protect Lebanon and its people - these are the principles reaffirmed in the presidential speech. At this moment, keeping Beirut safe and free of weapons is the gateway to restoring genuine sovereignty. The decision to strip illegitimate weapons of their legitimacy is historic and pivotal.
Equally significant is the rejection of the absurd notion of “integration” between official forces and any armed group. Dismantling the rhetoric itself is another priority: a militia operated from a distance by Iran can no longer be called “resistance.”
On the path toward restoring sovereignty, there is a need to reestablish the true meaning of the state. Lebanon needs a restoration of republican values that protect people’s dignity and safeguard their rights. The more attention is given to those most affected by this unjust and criminal war, the more people can be rescued from the grip of the armed militia whose arrogance has led it into suffocating isolation.
At the same time, the moment has come for the emergence of Shiite elites that save their community. Then, the remaining weapons will rust, and Lebanon will enter, through its widest gates, the era of the twilight of illegitimate force’s arrogance.
