What should happen with Hezbollah’s military capacities?

Lebanon is currently divided between two points of view regarding Hezbollah’s weapons: The first calls for their handover on the basis of the state’s right to monopolize violence, while the second calls for not handing them over to the state (or rather: the “non-state”) on the basis of its incapacity to defend Lebanon. However, it is noteworthy that both options are based on sectarian foundations, whether at the level of a party that has chosen, at least until now, to adopt a sectarian project, or at the level of a sectarian sociopolitical system—both of which are dependent on external forces. In light of this reality, an independent initiative has prepared a document entitled “Constants and Foundations of the Lebanese National Security Strategy”, which proposes the alternative: Establishing the legitimacy of a sovereign state capable of confronting the enemy. What does this document propose?

State sovereignty: Interestingly, the document mentions “sovereignty” 14 times and “resistance” 13 times, as there is no contradiction between the two concepts; rather, sovereignty requires resistance against all those who seek to violate it. A strong, independent, and just state is entrusted in the social contract with a monopoly on violence in order to fulfill its duty to defend the homeland and the people. However, this mandate is conditional, and the people have the right to revoke it if the state fails at its obligation to protect. On the other hand, national sovereignty is not limited to a monopoly on violence, but also includes the rejection of foreign intervention.

State’s weapons: The document considers that it is of the utmost necessity to strengthen the Lebanese army and enable it to perform its defensive role with advanced capabilities capable of deterring the Israeli threat. This is in stark contrast to the choices made by successive governments over the decades, which have enjoyed the confidence of the “resistance,” the “sovereignists,” and now the “reformists,” and which have relinquished their responsibility to strengthen the army’s capabilities to Qatar and the United States. Until the army is empowered, its role and that of the resistance will be defined not on the basis of foreign interests, but within an integrated national defense strategy that reconciles the requirements of sovereignty with those of deterrence.

READ: Israeli airstrikes target southern Lebanon in another breach of ceasefire

The transition of power from a sectarian system to a state: The document points to the current danger of the resistance being entrenched within the sectarian structure, such that attempts to confront this resistance carry the risk of causing political and social division. This highlights the need for a political system based on the principles of a non-sectarian system (i.e., a true state) founded on citizenship, equality, justice, and independence. Agreement on this vision for the political system would alleviate mutual fears, including that one party might use the conflict with Israel to gain an advantage over another local party. With these fears neutralized, the scope of the local political process widens, allowing for the formulation of national, rather than sectarian, strategies, policies, and programs to confront the enemy.

State economic and financial policies: The document proposes policies designed to dismantle the existing sectarian structure and establish the legitimacy of the state. At the top of the list is building a productive economy, in complete rupture with the rentier economy established by sectarian leaders (without exception) and bankers since the end of the civil war. Lebanon does not need to turn “East” or “West,” but rather to reduce its dependence on foreign countries by diversifying its economic partners, thereby achieving economic independence. It also needs to redistribute wealth by holding bankers accountable and achieving social justice in education and healthcare, thereby promoting the integration of Lebanese people into networks of interests that transcend sectarian and regional divisions.

State media and foreign policy: Notably, the document departs from the logic of limiting the response to the Zionist project to military means, proposing instead a media discourse directed at the Lebanese public, another directed at global public opinion, and yet another targeting the enemy itself. It also offers an alternative to the logic of “unity of the arenas,” which the Lebanese did not democratically adopt and which has proven ineffective in protecting Lebanon, and an alternative to the logic of “neutrality,” which is detached from reality, as we see the enemy’s control over Egypt and Jordan through its support for their repressive regimes and its repeated aggression against Syria. The establishment of the Lebanese state itself proposes foreign relations that serve the national security strategy, attracting expertise and manufacturing and technological capabilities that can be employed for security and military purposes, building influence in international and regional institutions, and communicating with elites and the global public to defend the Lebanese position.

Of course, this document is not a final proposal, but rather an introduction to a deeper discussion. For example, building a productive economy requires a census of the population that does not discriminate based on sectarian affiliation. Compulsory civil and military service is an effective option for transferring the expertise of resistance fighters to the state while involving the rest of society. The electoral law must be carefully considered so that it does not fuel sectarian fears rather than overcome them. However, it has the advantage of breaking away from the dichotomy of “surrendering or not surrendering weapons.” Therefore, all of Lebanese society, including politicians, trade unionists, media figures, elites, and other citizens, must contribute to this debate. Lebanon is heading toward a civil war that serves no one but its enemies, and the only solution is to dismantle our divisive sectarian structure and impose a transition to a state capable of protecting its society from internal and external dangers.

OPINION: The uncertain future of Lebanon under the project of disarming Hezbollah

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