US Dictates, Lebanese Sovereignty and Its Self-Proclaimed Defenders
By Gen. Monir Shehade
“Israeli” pressure, cloaked in an American guise, has reached Lebanon, compelling Lebanese sovereignty to announce a Cabinet session scheduled for next Tuesday, during which an item will be placed on the agenda calling for the exclusive possession of weapons by the state — and within specific timeframes.
This was preceded by a speech from His Excellency the President of the Republic, in which he explicitly called for the handover of all weapons — including those of Hezbollah. This stance starkly contrasts with his inaugural address, where he stated that the issue of the resistance’s arms could only be addressed through national consensus and within the framework of a national defense strategy. The shift underscores the impact of external pressure.
We have thus reached a stage where the objective is to strip Lebanon of its defensive capabilities — all while maintaining a ban on arming the Lebanese Army with any weapons that could pose a threat to “Israel”.
This was stated publicly by US envoy Tom Barrack, who declared that all weapons posing a danger to “Israel” must be destroyed. He also asserted that the Lebanese Army should be trained to maintain internal security rather than to wage offensive warfare.
The Lebanese Army will not — and shall not — be permitted to retain any strategic weapons it might confiscate from the Resistance.
“Israel” seeks to ensure that the armies of neighboring countries function merely as internal security forces — equipped only with light, individual arms, and tasked solely with maintaining domestic order, not confronting external aggression.
This is precisely what “Israel” implemented in Syria following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, systematically dismantling the Syrian Army’s capabilities, leaving the armed factions of the new regime with nothing more than individual weapons.
This new Syrian regime, which from its inception declared its readiness for “peace” with “Israel,” was nonetheless met with “Israeli” airstrikes targeting the Syrian Ministry of Defense, the vicinity of the presidential palace, and 200 other sites across Syrian territory. These targets had no connection to the events in Sweida, where “Israel” intervened under the guise of a “dove of peace” and protector of minorities, ultimately forcing Syrian armed forces to withdraw and retreat 70 kilometers from the southern border.
Thus, even this new Syrian regime — which expressed its willingness to make “peace” with “Israel” — received no guarantees from the international community to deter “Israeli” aggression against it.
We find a parallel example in more recent history, dating back to 2005, when Mr. Mahmoud Abbas assumed leadership of the Palestinian Authority.
For twenty years, Mahmoud Abbas has consistently advocated for diplomatic solutions and rejected the use of force to achieve even the minimal rights of the Palestinian people — namely, those attainable within the framework of a “two-state solution.”
For twenty years, the Palestinian Authority — limited to its security forces equipped only with individual weapons and steadfastly rejecting armed resistance against the Zionists — has witnessed “Israel” ravaging its people, committing massacres, annexing land, expanding settlements, oppressing the population, depriving them of their most basic rights, and storming Al-Aqsa Mosque on a daily basis.
The “Abbasi peace” sought by Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, along with his rejection of resistance, has neither protected the Palestinians from brutal reprisals, destruction of property, and uprooting of ancient trees, nor from the occupation of homes in the Old City of Al-Quds ["Jerusalem"] by settlers under the protection of “Israeli” security forces.
This envisioned “Abbasi peace” has failed to prevent “Israel” from wreaking havoc and destruction across the West Bank, forcibly displacing entire neighborhoods — sometimes under the pretext of building violations, and other times to clear the way for new settlements.
Did you know that in the West Bank — considered part of the so-called State of Palestine, alongside the Gaza Strip — there are 144 “Israeli” settlements?
Did you know that there are also more than one hundred settlement outposts in the West Bank?
Did you know that the West Bank is home to 707 “Israeli” security checkpoints?
All of this existed before the Al-Aqsa Flood and under the framework of the much-touted “Abbasi peace.”
With “Israel,” there are no guarantees, no international resolutions, and no adherence to international law.
With “Israel,” your only protection is your own strength — and strength alone.
This was a statement made by the Chief of Staff of the “Israeli” Army after the events in Suweyda, when he said: “No one in the region is protected unless they possess strength.”
Returning to Lebanon, it can be said that there are those who seek to disarm the resistance before “Israel” withdraws from the five outposts, before it halts its aggressions and violations, and without arming the Lebanese Army with any weapons capable of defending Lebanon and repelling any external aggression — whether “Israeli” or terrorist — in the absence of any American guarantees, as stated by Mr. Barrack.
Thus, we are heading toward a major crisis next Tuesday, the full extent of whose consequences no one can predict.
The resistance, through its Secretary General, refuses to discuss the disarmament or surrender of weapons. It conditions any such dialogue on “Israel” fulfilling its obligations: withdrawing beyond the internationally recognized borders, ceasing its aggressions and violations, releasing prisoners, and initiating genuine reconstruction efforts. Only then will the resistance be ready to sit down with His Excellency the President of the Republic to discuss a national security strategy — including a defense strategy in which the resistance’s arms fall under the authority of the state, with decisions on war and peace vested in it.
Dark days await Lebanon amid these malicious international pressures aimed at driving the country into internal conflict — especially as the Lebanese “Trojan horse” brazenly declared that it has prepared 15,000 fighters for this very purpose.
