Israel’s expansionist agenda aims to settle southern Lebanon, posing a threat despite international laws. The Lebanese army struggles to protect the region effectively; popular resistance has emerged to address the threat. Legal rights to resistance are upheld by international statutes, underscoring the legitimacy of local defense efforts. The interplay between military and popular resistance highlights the ongoing struggle against occupation.
Southern Lebanon, as referenced in Israel’s biblical narrative, is targeted for settlement efforts as part of what is termed “Greater Israel.” Support for this colonial initiative has emerged from members of the Knesset, with private investment companies proposing settlement projects in the region. The past illustrates the concerning evolution of such expansionist plans; previously dismissed settlement ideas in the West Bank were ultimately realized, violating international law despite the Oslo Accords and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s calls for statehood.
The momentum of settlement movements raises alarm that similar plans for southern Lebanon may become feasible over time. A lack of a deterrent military presence could facilitate a renewed Israeli incursion into Lebanon, as observed in the ongoing conflict in Syria. Reports indicate that the U.S. has directed the Lebanese army not to stockpile arms belonging to resistant factions located south of the Litani River. Furthermore, conflicting information regarding the destruction or storage of these arms has emerged, with Israel urging the U.S. to act preventively against Hezbollah’s military potential.
The late Arab leader Abdel Nasser inspired a generation with the message “Keep the weapon awake.” In stark contrast, contemporary voices echo a sentiment akin to “Keep the weapon exclusive,” representing a plea for disarmament among resistance advocates. This perspective seems to stem from a desire to dilute the collective resistance against occupation, particularly in light of widespread subservience to Western powers among certain factions.
Opponents of this resistance strategy seem to disregard its historical significance, which exists globally wherever oppression persists. The concept of exclusive weaponry, born with the nation-state ideal, does not nullify the inherent right to resist aggression. Historical instances of armed resistance, from Algeria to Vietnam, reinforce its rightful place in the struggle for independence. Legal frameworks, such as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 45/130 and Article 51 of the UN Charter, solidify the legitimacy of armed resistance against colonial domination and uphold the right to self-defense against aggression.
The Lebanese resistance was pivotal in liberating southern Lebanon from a protracted occupation and has maintained a deterrent presence that has, for decades, secured the region. While individual bravery within the Lebanese army exists, its historical efficacy against the Israeli threat remains questionable, particularly given instances where factions split off to collaborate with occupying forces.
Recent months have seen a resurgence in popular resistance, as local residents have mobilized to expedite the withdrawal of Israeli forces from frontline villages. This growing grassroots effort complements military resistance and the Lebanese army’s operations, highlighting the critical interplay between various forms of resistance. As concerns rise regarding the army’s capacity to protect the southern region from Israeli incursions, one must question the calls for disarming the resistance, especially in light of the army’s inaction amid recurring violations.
The ongoing efforts to settle Southern Lebanon under the guise of a biblical narrative underline the precarious situation in the region. Historical patterns suggest that without a strong military deterrent, Lebanon may face increasing vulnerability. The Lebanese army’s limitations in addressing threats do not diminish the legitimacy and necessity of a multifaceted resistance approach, which incorporates both popular movements and military strategy. Ultimately, the question of the army’s capacity to safeguard southern Lebanon remains paramount as tensions with Israel persist.
Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com
