By Mohamad Hammoud
For more than a year after the ceasefire was signed, many Lebanese families believed they would finally return to their villages in the south and begin rebuilding what the war had destroyed. Instead, “Israeli” forces repeatedly violated the truce. According to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon [UNIFIL], “Israel” carried out near-daily strikes on border villages and agricultural fields, killing civilians and reducing homes and schools to rubble.
During this period, Hezbollah deliberately stepped back but warned that patience has limits, giving the Lebanese government an opportunity to address the violations through diplomatic channels. Those efforts failed. Rather than standing with the “Resistance” to confront continued attacks, the government bowed to external pressure and moved to disarm the “Resistance”- the force many Lebanese believe has been defending the country’s sovereignty.
Patience, however, does have limits, as Sheikh Naim Qassem has warned on many occasions. From beneath the rubble of their towns, the “Resistance” reemerged, determined to defend Lebanon’s dignity and sovereignty.
The Border Stand: Stopping the Advance
As confrontation resumed, fighting returned to villages that had already endured months of destruction. In several areas, Human Rights Watch reported that “Israeli” forces unlawfully deployed white phosphorus over residential neighborhoods during the ceasefire, to render them uninhabitable and prevent residents from returning.
Yet the devastation did not produce the strategic outcome “Israel” sought. Instead, it reshaped the battlefield itself. Analysts have noted the resilience of the “Resistance,” whose fighters have turned the rubble created by bombardment into an operational advantage. According to an analysis published by the PRIF Blog on March 6, 2026, the “Resistance” adopted a “flat, cellular structure” that preserves operational integrity even under intense pressure. This decentralized structure allows small units to operate independently, striking advancing forces and preventing them from consolidating control or seizing new territory.
Intelligence Failures and Operational Resurgence
The battlefield performance of the “Resistance” has surprised many Western and “Israeli” analysts. Reports published in March 2026 by the Institute for the Study of War [ISW] noted that many in the West had predicted that after the 2024 conflict Hezbollah had been effectively “decapitated” and its infrastructure irreparably degraded.
They were mistaken. Recent ISW assessments indicate that the group has rebuilt parts of its arsenal far faster than expected. Despite losing senior commanders, it has adapted, reorganized, and returned to the battlefield. This recovery exposes a major flaw in earlier Western assessments that relied heavily on “Israel’s” claims of decisive victory.
The consequences of that miscalculation are increasingly visible. Military officials quoted in Haaretz and the Middle East Monitor acknowledge that defensive technology is struggling, with interception success rates described as “very low.” Despite billions in Western support, “Israel” has been unable to guarantee the safety of northern towns, prompting evacuations as Hezbollah's drones continue penetrating deep into its territory.
The Legitimacy Crisis in Beirut
Back in Beirut, many asked a troubling question: what is the role of a government that fails to defend its sovereignty while it is violated daily? According to L’Orient Today, the Lebanese army withdrew from border villages after learning that “Israeli” forces intended incursion, leaving families to fend for themselves. At the same time, the government moved to disarm the “Resistance,” the very force confronting the enemy. For many Lebanese, these decisions reinforced the perception that the state serves foreign interests while failing in its most basic duty: protecting its citizens.
This raises a central question in the national debate: when a population is abandoned by those responsible for its defense, does it not retain the right to resist?
The Inherent Right of Resistance
This question is not merely emotional- it also carries legal weight. The UN Charter, in Article 51, recognizes the inherent right of self-defense when a state cannot protect its people from attack. Legal scholars note that sovereignty includes the right to resist foreign aggression when international mechanisms fail to enforce the law. As MP Hassan Fadlallah argues, the “Resistance” is not simply a political movement but, for many Lebanese, a necessity for survival.
The Future Ahead
With “Israel” launching its latest aggression, “Operation Roaring Lion,” hopes for a negotiated settlement appear increasingly remote. The international community’s inability- or unwillingness- to enforce a balanced ceasefire leaves the people of southern Lebanon facing a familiar reality: their future may once again be decided not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield.
No comments:
Post a Comment