Lebanon's option: Resistance for self-defence

A long (and futile) debate is taking place in Lebanon about which is more effective: seeking a ceasefire or working and, thus, resisting, to stop Israel’s escalating aggression against the land, people, trees, stones, resistance, army, UNIFIL peacekeeping forces and all aspects of life in the Land of the Cedars.

The majority of those who support a ceasefire are opponents of Hezbollah, which is rising up with other Lebanese and Palestinian organisations in fierce resistance to the Zionist enemy. The majority of those who support a halt to the Zionist attacks are enemies of Israel, which has been attacking Lebanon in one way or another since it signed an armistice agreement with it in 1949, until it occupied about half of its area in 1982 and established a strip of occupation along its borders with Occupied Palestine that lasted about twenty years. It only withdrew from it due to the persistent popular resistance.

Israel is now trying to reoccupy Lebanon. Today, Hezbollah and its allies are confronting it and inflicting heavy human and material losses on it, not to mention hitting the home of the Occupying state’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Caesarea, prompting the Occupation to unleash its air force to strike homes and civilian shops, day and night, across all of Lebanon, from its south to its north, causing the displacement of no less than 1.3 million citizens. While the Lebanese are busy with their long and futile debate about which is more effective, a ceasefire or stopping the blatant Israeli aggression, Netanyahu rushed to respond to French President, Emmanuel Macron, who had called on him to avoid attacking the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon, by stressing Israel’s opposition to a unilateral ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and confirming that the Israeli forces had asked UNIFIL to leave several times, but were repeatedly refused.

OPINION: Australia relies on Israeli weapons, which means it now relies on genocide

He claimed UNIFIL would provide a human shield for “Hezbollah terrorists,” saying that Macron and other advocates of stopping arms supplies to the Zionist entity at this time should feel ashamed of such a call. Netanyahu would not have gone so far in his positions on the ceasefire and his attack on UNIFIL, demanding that it leave southern Lebanon, and continuing to criticise Macron, saying he should feel ashamed for demanding a halt to the supply of weapons to Israel, had he not been confident in the United States’ support for him in his genocidal war on Gaza, his blatant aggression against Lebanon and his refusal of a ceasefire. Didn’t US President Joe Biden declare that he knew when Israel would respond militarily to Iran, but that he would not reveal that now? Didn’t his envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein, declare to the Lebanese Al-Jadeed television channel that UN Resolution 1701 needs amendments and additions to ensure its implementation, refusing to provide any guarantees regarding the enemy’s cessation of bombing the capital, Beirut, and its southern suburbs? Don’t these attacks and positions prove what has become clear: that the American political action takes place within the framework of efforts aimed at completing what the Zionist enemy failed to achieve in the internal Lebanese equation, i.e., developing a political formula aimed at ensuring that the resistance of Hezbollah and its allies does not recover, and do not restore their capabilities and deterrent power in the post-war phase?

In light of these facts and developments, it is clear that Lebanon is not in a position that enables it to choose between a ceasefire and stopping the ongoing Israeli aggression but, rather, it is now bound to adopt one option, which is the resistance that is now emerging as part of the duty of self-defence, and the subsequent need to commit to the provision of all the capabilities and requirements needed to ensure success in deterring the enemy and defeating it. Moreover, it has become imperative for the national forces in the government and opposition to realise a stark fact, i.e., they should not expect any tangible and effective support from the ruling forces in the Western Atlantic countries of Europe and America, since the political and economic developments in those countries have affected the right-wing forces with their anti-Semitic ideological history, according to the well-known French thinker, Alain Gresh, and turned them into forces that support Israel, as Islam has become the main enemy for them after they succeeded in imposing their discourse and concepts on the political scene in European countries.

OPINION: Israel’s Biblical wars of ‘self-defence’: The myth of the ‘seven war fronts’

There is also the fact that the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance forces must take into account, which is that there is no significant force supporting them in the world except Iran, and although Iran has been able to confront the American pressures and sanctions against it since the outbreak of its revolution in 1979, and has succeeded on the military (especially in manufacturing long-range ballistic missiles) and technological levels, it still faces great American pressure and an imminent threat of Israel using nuclear weapons against it. Iran has shown a clear willingness to support the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance forces politically and militarily, and it has sent both its Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, and its Speaker of the Parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, to Lebanon and Syria to confirm Tehran’s commitment to supporting the resistance forces and the Arab governments that support them. However, its first commitment remains defending itself as it is threatened by an Israeli attack that is rumoured to be targeting its nuclear facilities. Tehran may be able to fulfil both commitments, but the challenge remains very great, especially if Netanyahu is able to drag the US into participating in his expected attack on it before 5 November.  Whatever the case, Iran would not have committed to supporting the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance if it were not able to do so. Perhaps it also realises that what both resistances, especially the Lebanese resistance, lack are air defence missiles it can use to confront Israel’s advanced F-35 aircraft. It is rumoured that Iran possesses Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles that can shoot down the advanced Israeli American aircraft if they are flying in Iranian skies or close to its airspace, but it is not possible for them to do so if they are flying over Lebanon or Palestine due to the long distance.

How can this dilemma be addressed?

It is said that there are two solutions: the first is difficult and the second is easy. The difficult solution is to provide the Lebanese resistance with the effective air defence missiles that Iran possesses, due to the difficulty of delivering them to Lebanon. The easy solution is for Tehran to provide the Iraqi resistance forces with these missiles so that the latter can use them against Israeli aircraft when they bomb civilian or military targets in Lebanon. The Iranian missiles must be able be effective from the shorter distance between Iraq and Lebanon. However, if the long distance prevents the Iraqi resistance forces from using Iranian air defence missiles from Iraq, Tehran has no choice but to announce that its “revenge” against Israel, avenging Lebanon and Palestine and in honour of their people, will be expressed in Iran’s deafening response to Israel’s expected attack before or after 5 November.  Strategic patience is the key to relief for Lebanon and Palestine.

OPINION: Israel’s losing game in the Middle East: A war with no results

This article appeared in Arabic in Al Quds on 20 October, 2024.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.