Between Preserving Sovereignty and Others’ Peace

Head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad, Al-Akhbar

ABNA24 - The easiest excuse a Lebanese official can use to justify their confusion and failure to protect the country and safeguard its sovereignty- especially when honorable citizens take the initiative to resist the Zionist enemy occupying the land and threatening the nation- is to accuse those Lebanese resistance fighters of waging other people’s wars on Lebanese soil.

This ready-made accusation always stems from a mix of ideological, political, personal, and psychological motives, and it reflects several underlying issues:

1. An immediate disavowal of the act of resistance- its motives and objectives- and a preemptive attempt to avoid any suspicion from overseeing powers that the disavowing party might have had prior knowledge, implicit coordination, or even passive tolerance of this “forbidden” noble act.
2. An emotional denial of the necessity of resistance, coupled with political and psychological defensiveness that blocks any willingness to understand its context- alongside a latent insecurity regarding the very concept of sovereignty.
3. A growing arrogance within authority, inflating the urge to condemn legitimate national action, suppress it, undermine it, and retaliate against those who carry it out.
4. An increased desire to gain support for the actions and positions of officials or the ruling authority, opening the door to externally guided advice, assistance, and coordination within prepackaged agendas that serve unbalanced interests and aim to contain or eliminate grassroots resistance to occupation.
5. A reversal of priorities in public opinion, where the fundamental duty of legitimate defense and confronting occupation is sidelined, replaced instead by condemnation of resistance simply because it falls outside the official agenda.
6. Participation in incitement, misinformation, and character assassination—spreading rumors about courageous national resistance to isolate it and prevent it from gaining public support.

All these elements are embedded in the short, seemingly simple phrase: “others’ wars on our land.”

There is also a deeper level to this official stance, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Attempting to strip the resistance of any national belonging that could justify or motivate its actions.
2. Directly accusing it of serving the interests of external parties or states, thereby threatening national interests and paving the way to question the patriotism of resistance fighters and portray them as acting with criminal intent.
3. Laying the groundwork for political or governmental decisions that would strip resistance of any legitimacy, alienate the Lebanese public from it, and cut off its moral and material support.
4. Preparing a political climate that could justify confrontation or even the use of force to suppress resistance activity and impose the authority’s will—while demonstrating “good behavior” to external overseers.
5. Rejecting any political, constitutional, or legal interpretation that differs from that of the ruling authority, even at the cost of overturning prior national agreements, including the National Pact and the Lebanese Constitution.

In a country like Lebanon—where divisions run deep, extending to questions of national identity, sovereignty, political alignment, and the nature of relations with the outside world—fate seems destined to continue playing a decisive role in determining the limits of stability and the country’s response to regional changes.

There remains a set of determinants around which the interaction revolves, either positively or negatively, and whether it adheres to the existing equations or deviates from them partially or completely. Several key factors shape this dynamic:

1. The alignment—or conflict—between national identity and sectarian affiliation.
2. The balance between sovereignty and dependency in defining national interests.
3. The permissible degree of compromise allowed between core national values and existing power dynamics between Lebanon, its surroundings and the world.
4. The strength or fragmentation of international influence, and its positive or negative impact on adherence to international law and norms adopted at the official international level.
5. The level of public support for the ruling authority and trust in its patriotism, balance, integrity, and sound judgment regarding the choices and interests that are supposed to be adopted.
6. The cultural, political, and grassroots influence of the resistance and the extent of its popular support in the country and the region.

At present, Lebanon stands on a seismic fault line that threatens the entire region, amid shifting international relations. The consequences unfold according to power balances and competing ambitions shaping alliances and confrontations.

In this region, there is a growing “Israeli”-American dominance attempting to redraw the map in a way that ensures the consolidation of the occupation of Palestine, the elimination of its cause, the security of the “Israeli” entity, and the expansion of Washington’s control over the countries and peoples of the region. The issue is not merely the occupation of areas in Lebanon or Syria, but rather the management of the affairs of the Arab states according to a pattern of political and economic influence that gives the American colonial administration free reign to control regional resources, waterways, and economic interests with the world.

The key to achieving this lies in submission to the will of the occupying power—accepting its aggression and conditions, as it functions as “America’s notorious policeman” and guardian of its regional interests.

Whether this project succeeds in Lebanon depends on the Lebanese people themselves: do they accept living under “Israeli” and American domination, or do they choose to resist and remain sovereign and free in determining their future? Do they wish to be drawn into the wars of others, as some officials appear to advocate, or to assert their independence and reject any form of guardianship- whether from friend or foe?

Following the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, and before the formation of a new government, the resistance adhered to the terms of the agreement and considered the Lebanese state responsible for its implementation: preserving sovereignty, stopping violations, ending occupation, securing the release of prisoners, and beginning reconstruction.

However, the political and diplomatic course taken by the authorities has instead aligned with the demands of the Zionist enemy and its backers, implementing policies contrary to Lebanon’s national interests. National priorities have been replaced with questionable ones- most notably the exclusive focus on disarming resistance, instead of prioritizing the end of occupation. This was followed by measures to cut off support to resistance and its environment, linking reconstruction to structural financial reforms, and tying the cessation of hostilities to the disarmament of resistance.

Over the past year and three months, the enemy has continued its violations- targeting Lebanese towns and villages, escalating destruction, threatening stability, and killing civilians, with over 500 killed and 3,000 wounded- while the resistance has exercised restraint as the state effectively pursued “others’ peace” on Lebanese soil without securing any real implementation of the agreement.

Officials have even avoided referencing the agreement to avoid displeasing the United States, which supports “Israel” and rejects enforcing its own commitments.

An authority that fails to enforce its own national peace and instead submits to the peace of others- which in reality amounts to surrender- has neither the right nor the credibility to accuse the resistance of fighting others’ wars. The resistance has demonstrated its national integrity through sacrifice- liberating the land and establishing a deterrence balance with the enemy between 2006 and 2023, for at least 17 years- while leveraging its alliances in service of Lebanon’s sovereignty, security, and stability.

Today, after forcing a ceasefire, it is incumbent upon the authorities to press for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces from Lebanese territory, the release of prisoners, and the initiation of reconstruction—based on the commitments made on November 27, 2024- without the need for direct negotiations or new agreements with the occupying entity.

Every drop of blood shed by those who gave their lives defending Lebanon- fighting for dignity, sovereignty, and freedom- is more valuable than any so-called friendship that supports our enemy, blackmails us when we seek help, and pressures our leadership into reconciliation with it.

/129