The Battle Is Not About Priorities—It’s About Surrender

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Al-Akhbar Newspaper

The public debate in Lebanon is not a technocratic disagreement over what comes first in a national to-do list—it is a struggle over the identity, sovereignty and future of the country. Those demanding that the resistance disarm are not merely proposing a policy shift; they are advocating full surrender. And in doing so, without any semblance of national consensus, they cannot expect others to comply.

There is a misconception being promoted that Lebanon’s internal rift is about the timing or priority of confronting the “Israeli” occupation. In truth, the rift runs far deeper: it is a fundamental dispute over whether to resist or to capitulate.

Since the latest war, Lebanon’s anti-resistance factions have declared the outcome proof that the resistance has failed—as an idea and as a strategy. From this assertion, they promote their preferred alternative: unconditional surrender. They echo American demands to dismantle the resistance—not only by taking away its weapons, but by annihilating its very ethos and organization.

But these factions’ hostility to the resistance is nothing new. They never genuinely accepted the path of confronting the “Israeli” enemy. Ironically, many of them once waged their own wars—claiming they were “resisting” Palestinians or Syrians—without waiting for national consensus, and using the state’s political, security, and military institutions to serve their agenda.

During those wars, which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Lebanese, they saw their own fighters as martyrs for “liberation.” Civilian casualties were brushed aside as unfortunate but necessary sacrifices. Now, however, these same factions reject the legitimacy of confronting “Israel”—even though it is the actual foreign occupier.

Even after the Taif Agreement, they labeled “Israel” an “enemy” only for rhetorical purposes. In practice, they have never shown any serious commitment to confronting it. For many in the Kataeb-led Lebanese Front, the issue was closed the moment the agreement was signed. Their supposed reassessment of the past never went beyond this superficial acknowledgment.

This is the lens through which one must examine the resistance’s weapons today. How can there be meaningful dialogue with parties that do not view “Israel” as a threat—neither to Lebanon’s sovereignty, nor its people, nor its regional standing? Worse, they embrace the American narrative: that Arabs must normalize relations with “Israel”, and that all of “Israel’s” enemies must be eliminated.

Their argument is defeatist and cynical: “Israel” is too powerful to fight—so we must accept it.

This is not simply a tactical or political contradiction; it is a moral and national one. These same voices once engaged in armed resistance [on their own terms], but now denounce resistance as reckless. They never frame their own history as a series of strategic errors—instead, they blame the West for “abandoning” them to Syrian and Palestinian forces. The issue, therefore, is not military; it is a fundamental contradiction in values and vision.

Take the matter of Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons. How many ministers—of foreign affairs, communications, or any other portfolio—can even name them? Who in the government routinely raises the issue in international forums? The problem is not oversight; it is apathy. They do not see the abduction of Lebanese citizens as a matter worthy of consistent national attention. They have internalized the enemy’s message: disarm, or we will not just kidnap your people—we will destroy your nation.

Mentioning the detainees is not meant to provoke—but to expose. If the liberation of these prisoners is not a national priority, then how can we trust these factions to care about reconstruction or sovereignty? How can they be expected to defend Lebanese dignity or freedom? They are not even willing to acknowledge the enemy’s ongoing crimes.

This is why talking about “reordering national priorities” is a waste of time. Anyone who does not see Israel as a threat, who is unwilling to take action against its aggression, and who does not even adopt symbolic measures of resistance—cannot be trusted with the lives, livelihoods, or dignity of the Lebanese people.

That is precisely why those committed to the resistance must not give up one of their most important sources of power: their weapons.

Today, a growing number of Lebanese elites place themselves under the protective umbrella of American hegemony. They tell us that Lebanon has no choice but to submit to American dictates—that our economy, society, and future are in Washington’s hands. From that premise, they argue that resistance must end. And that the people must surrender their right to self-determination.

But they never question America’s global behavior: its refusal to stop the genocide in Palestine, its role in starving Yemen and Iran, its sabotage campaigns in Syria and Iraq, or its blackmail of regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and the Gulf.

Yes, Lebanon cannot afford new civil strife—but it also cannot afford the normalization of surrender.

This is not just about weapons. This is about resisting the systemic entrenchment of capitulation in every domain of national life. It is about rejecting a political culture that internalizes defeat, demoralizes the people, and hollows out the state.

For those who struggle to understand why peoples resist occupation, they should at least comprehend this: the cost of resistance—however high—will always be less than the cost of surrender.

That is why we must say, again and again: No surrender of weapons.