Exclusive Violation: Stripping Lebanon of Its Reconstruction Power
By Abdullah Issa
Lebanon’s decision to accept a cessation of hostilities on the eve of October 27, 2024, did not come without a heavy price—paid by Lebanon itself, its political class, Syria and the region as a whole. This decision impacted Syria’s position and role on the geopolitical, geoeconomic and geomilitary maps, and altered its regional influence, as well as the trajectory of the war, which rapidly reached the outskirts of Tehran.
Continuing the battle and deepening the confrontation were necessary steps to affirm the resistance’s superiority and to legitimize its presence on the battlefield the next day—both within the terms of the agreement and amid the political tug-of-war surrounding it.
Targeting “Israel’s” elite forces—those within its criminal, deceptive and oath-breaking apparatus, which is armed and shielded by a Western strategic umbrella—was essential to intensifying attrition during critical stages of the war. And even when the resistance operated at peak capability, it deliberately withheld firepower to prolong battlefield synergy, further strain the enemy’s reserves and armament, and delay the realignment of the regional geopolitical order stretching from Damascus to Tehran.
This is not populist rhetoric, nor does it fall into the trap of “What if?”. The resistance performed with honor, sacrifice and wisdom—succeeding in preserving internal unity and cohesion within both its base and the broader Lebanese public. This was a calculated, rational course—not a luxury of time or debate. A thousand salutes to the steadfast, determined, martyr-seeking leadership.
These reflections are both timely and essential. In moments that shape new trajectories, awareness becomes urgent, especially as developments escalate. It is also necessary for restoring balance through a recalibrated mindset in negotiations—internally and externally—based on a sovereign logic that does justice to the resistance: its strength, its defensive mission, and its historic achievements. One that engages the people based on their sacrifices and expectations—not on formulas that betray their hopes.
This is not a celebratory discourse, but one that demands self-reflection and re-evaluation. It is a moment that calls for serious internal critique—one that recognizes the dangers of projecting weakness at a time when weakness hides behind illusions of strength, and that values the weight of courageous, decisive action in critical moments.
The Orchestra of the Impossible and the Journey into the Unknown
At this most critical moment, we find ourselves surrounded by the largest off-key orchestra—forced to endure the voices of makeshift heroes scrambling to fill a vacuum they never foresaw. Some rush to demand the surrender of arms to the Lebanese state, reviving tired rhetoric about the state's monopoly on weapons as a supposed precondition for reforms that are both unrealistic and impossible. Others promote Hezbollah’s integration into the state while secretly fearing its growing influence and future role.
Let us speak calmly, anchored in historical, demographic, and current realities—without pretense or euphemism. The discourse unfolds across four dimensions: the state itself; those pushing this line of argument; the structure of their narrative; and its ultimate function.
The Lebanese state is fragile, crumbling and incapable. Any path to its revival must begin with an independent national founding conference—one that remains elusive due to the incompetence of the ruling class, both in personal and institutional terms. Added to that are the complexities of evolving regional and global events, which obstruct the emergence of any national dialogue free from foreign domination, hidden agendas, conspiracies or the demographic consequences of devastating wars.
Meanwhile, local actors shift roles like performers in a staged play—all marching toward a goal scripted by an unseen author and director.
One flaunts his intention to surrender arms—deceptively and evasively—36 years after the Taif Agreement. Another relies on cheap populism, rejected by his own party's elite and widely reviled in the political arena for his vulgarity, contradictions and egocentrism. His party is destined for further decline due to structural weaknesses and a hollow, stereotypical brand of leadership.
Then there are those aligned with the American project—openly or covertly. Whether warlords of past prisons and strongholds or soft-spoken advocates of “neutrality” [which, in truth, means blind submission], they all operate within an imbalance of power tilted toward the aggressor.
These figures—cloaked in high-definition American polish, deception, and corruption—fail to understand Lebanon’s position and role. Their hearts are fragmented, their minds vacant; they are hollow shells occupying Lebanese space, sustained only by others’ suspension of reality.
They manifest across platforms: press conferences, media appearances [where white coats can't conceal the darkness of their words], sermons, presidential visits and more—all united by a single agenda: the exclusive violation of Lebanese sovereignty—by land, sea, and air.
They spread violence without regard for geography—not just south of the Litani or Awali rivers—but offering up Shebaa Farms on a silver platter. They squander national dignity, commit treason by relinquishing offshore oil wealth, and strip Lebanon of its ability to rebuild.
It's worth noting that while their positions may appear diverse, their underlying purpose is one and the same. It's not shaped by their delusions, but by the foreign agenda they serve. In this context, it matters little who enacts the betrayal or how. As long as the imbalance of power favors America, “Israel,” and the West, these actors will remain tools—irrelevant to the future they are helping to undermine.
Inescapable Realities
This is, fundamentally, a call to bring an end to 43 years of Hezbollah’s jihad under the banner of resistance—and to declare the beginning of a new and radically different phase. It is also a reminder, collectively and individually, on the 43rd anniversary of confronting the enemy in Khaldeh, Beirut, and throughout the occupied South.
Since the 1982 “Israeli” invasion and the rise of Islamic Resistance, three key realities must be reaffirmed:
- The resistance in Lebanon today is not weaker than it was in 2006, 2008, or 2011—each of these years serving as a benchmark for evaluating the balance of power, where ambiguity proved a powerful weapon.
- The resistance has nothing left to lose comparable to what was lost in 2024.
- The people of the resistance now possess deeper faith and greater resilience. They have endured war, seen the enemy’s brutality, and watched the cowardice of those who align with it. Meanwhile, diplomacy has grown weaker, homes continue to be destroyed, and the state does nothing but attack the noblest national cause: resistance.
In light of these truths, it is imperative to draw strength from past phases, honor their legacy and address weaknesses through practical programs that respond to today’s variables and challenges. One must also prepare for worsening scenarios. If you see the lion baring its teeth, do not mistake it for a smile.
Ultimately, the Resistance camp remains rooted in a defensive doctrine—and its overriding priority is the security of its people and communities.
The era of indulging the hesitant and wayward—those who have strayed from the compass of standing with the oppressed in values, ethics and political commitment—is over. The time has come for steadfastness, for rebuilding and for fulfilling the responsibilities of defense and protection.
It is also time to restore faith in a state that has plundered its citizens’ bank deposits and remains paralyzed before an American envoy who arrives and departs at will. A state whose only real monopoly is on violation—and whose only power lies in preventing national reconstruction.
Comments
