By Mohammad Al-Husseini

Once again, the political crisis in Lebanon is repeating itself, reminiscent of the early 1980s, when the region was undergoing a painful period of difficult choices. The year 1982 marked a pivotal juncture, introducing a set of elements that reshaped the map of internal and external transformations.

Today, the region seems to be heading toward a similar scenario, with the same actors and forces maintaining their political identity and objectives—whether in terms of US control over the state’s institutions and political decision-making, or in the promotion of divisive agendas based on sectarian and religious motives. The ultimate goal remains to turn Lebanon into an “Israeli” protectorate—an objective that requires removing all obstacles, foremost among them the disarmament of the Resistance.

Lebanon had previously come to the brink of existential collapse before, during, and after the “Israeli” invasion, when the aim was to eliminate the Palestinian resistance as a prelude to reshaping Lebanon’s official system with an “Israeli” identity. At that time, US President Ronald Reagan—through his Lebanese-American envoy Philip Habib [in a role similar to Trump’s envoy today]—played a role in engineering what was then called the “new Lebanese era” under “Israeli” hegemony.

That period witnessed a torrent of threats, both internal and external, warning that Lebanon might face extinction and disappear from the map unless the state moved to disarm the Palestinian factions and deport the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO]. Regrettably, it was Saudi Arabia that undertook the task of coordinating, funding, and supporting the process of deporting the Palestinian fighters into diaspora.

Six months before the June invasion—specifically on January 4—a statement by the Kataeb Party was read by MP Amine Gemayel, which included the following:

“…1982 will be the year of fateful decisions, as Lebanon and the region are heading toward a qualitative shift in political destiny.”

In March, the enemy’s war minister Ariel Sharon articulated the intended nature of that shift, declaring:

“The objective of the upcoming ‘Israeli’ invasion is to resolve the Lebanese crisis by establishing a legitimate government that seeks peace with us.”

At the same time, Bashir Gemayel gave the signal to begin military preparations, training, and mobilization of forces, threatening to make a “serious and dangerous decision,” which he followed with field escalation on the Sinneen front in the mountains and the Batroun–Koura region in the north.

The steps of this so-called “qualitative change” quickly materialized with the “Israeli” invasion of Lebanon, under US blessing and with Arab and international silence. The enemy expanded its incursion from a depth of 40 kilometers beyond the border all the way to Beirut. The goal was not merely to “remove the Palestinian threat,” but also to impose a new political-security reality aimed at supporting Bashir Gemayel and installing him as President of the Lebanese Republic. This was the outcome of a meeting that brought together the enemy’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Habib, war minister Ariel Sharon, and foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir.

This was confirmed by “Israeli” ambassador to West Germany Yitzhak Ben-Ari, who stated:

“The IOF entered Lebanon at the request of certain parties within it… The attacking forces aim to occupy part of Lebanon and grant the presidency to our dear Sheikh Pierre Gemayel.”

It is as if history is repeating itself, as we witness today the same landscape of political positions amidst near-total collapse. Some political forces that, until recently, supported the resistance and its path have chosen to avoid taking positions that could anger Washington or Tel Aviv. This is exactly what the enemy is counting on—believing, according to “Israeli” assessments, that the distancing of Hezbollah’s allies has left the Resistance going through one of its most difficult phases ever.

Meanwhile, Samir Geagea has taken it upon himself to “preach” a new “Israeli” era, appointing himself as the state’s decision-maker by setting a three-month deadline to disarm Hezbollah. Otherwise, he warns, “the country will be exposed to all possibilities—at the very least, vulnerable to ‘Israeli’ strikes, and at worst, facing a new wave of violence or another ‘Israeli’ war”.

This intimidation has not even been initiated by the enemy’s own officials to the same extent that some Lebanese figures have taken it upon themselves to spread alarm. But these officials understand well that what was achievable in the case of the PLO under the Arab umbrella does not apply to Hezbollah, which is deeply rooted in its Lebanese identity and derives its legitimacy from national affiliation—expressed through its resistance, social presence, and political performance representing a broad segment of Lebanese society—not only among Shiites, but also across other sects and parties aligned with the path of resistance. This path has proven its effectiveness in liberating land and preserving true sovereignty and independence.

While PLO leaders laid down their arms in favor of political settlements due to military defeat, Western pressure, and Arab abandonment, the resistance in Lebanon has drawn important lessons from that experience. Chief among them: weapons must not be surrendered without achieving objectives and securing real guarantees—at the very least, avoiding placing their necks under the American-“Israeli” guillotine.

The intimidation and reliance on “Israel” is not limited to military threats. Political drumbeaters now link the reconstruction of what the “Israeli” war destroyed—and the lifting of the Arab and American financial and economic blockade on Lebanon—to the disarmament of the resistance. This recalls the siege once imposed by occupation forces on what was then known as “West Beirut,” when supply convoys were prevented from entering—leading to worsening living conditions, skyrocketing food prices, and an intensifying fuel and energy crisis.

At the time, Kataeb Party politburo member Karim Pakradouni told Radio France [France Inter]:

“…If there is even one armed Palestinian in Lebanon, that means not a single dollar or franc will enter the country. In fact, there will not be one Lebanon, but a torn and fragmented Lebanon.”

This is how today’s so-called advocates of sovereignty promote placing Lebanon under “Israeli” control—stripped of all means of resistance and resilience—fully aware that their rhetoric will once again plunge the country into a tunnel of fragmentation.

Moreover, it will give the enemy a free hand to commit massacres against any segment of the Lebanese people that refuses to submit. The Sabra and Shatila massacre, perpetrated by the occupation and the Lebanese militias allied with it following the assassination of Bashir Gemayel, remains a clear example of the future that awaits Lebanon.

This, despite sources from the US Congress stating at the time that Gemayel had told his aides before his assassination that “Israeli” Prime Minister Menachem Begin had humiliated him during their secret meeting in the Nahariya settlement shortly after his election—treating him like a servant. So, do the so-called sovereigntists accept being servants to America and “Israel”?!

It is as if history is repeating itself, and perhaps the drumbeaters have misread the position of the resistance leadership, which remains committed to the ceasefire agreement in order to avoid exposing Lebanon to a new “Israeli” war. However, today’s equation is very different from that of the past—in the dictionary of the resistance, its people, its environment, and its supporters. The weapon that expelled the “Israeli” occupier, liberated the land in 2000, achieved victories at the hands of resistance fighters, and broke the American blockade imposed on Lebanon will not be swayed by pressure from here or intimidation from there.

Those who have worked to fortify Lebanon against threats and defended it against looming dangers are well aware of the magnitude of their responsibility, which extends across the entire nation and its borders in all four directions. They are also fully capable of making the right decisions in the interest of Lebanon and its people—so that Lebanon remains not a servant, but a master: Free and independent.

Click here to read in Arabic