By Mohamad Hammoud
Historical Amnesia: The Cost of Trusting International Law
A dangerous strain of historical amnesia has taken hold among segments of the Lebanese public, producing calls for “pure diplomacy” in the face of persistent aggression. Those who dismiss armed resistance as outdated or destructive appear to have forgotten the lessons of the 1970s.
In 1978, the United Nations passed Resolution 425, explicitly demanding that “Israel” immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Lebanese soil. For over twenty-two years, this decree remained a dead letter, ignored with total impunity by an occupier that faced no meaningful international pressure.
The tragedy of Lebanon’s diplomatic advocates lies in their refusal to acknowledge a simple fact: paper resolutions have never protected a single southern village. As reported by Reuters, the 2000 withdrawal was not the result of a sudden “Israeli” respect for international law or a breakthrough in a New York boardroom. It was the direct consequence of a sustained resistance campaign that made the occupation too costly to maintain. The historical record is clear—withdrawal came only when the cost of staying exceeded the benefit.
The 2024 Betrayal: Ceasefires as Tactical Cover
The failure of diplomacy is nowhere more evident than in the fallout of the 2024 ceasefire agreement, mediated by Western powers. Marketed as a 90-day pathway to sovereignty, it instead functioned as a tactical pause for “Israel” to reposition. While the resistance adhered to the cessation of hostilities to demonstrate good faith and give Lebanese diplomacy a chance, “Israeli” forces used the lull to fortify strategic hills and install advanced surveillance systems inside Lebanese territory.
By early 2025, the “ceasefire” had become a grim fiction. UNIFIL recorded thousands of violations, including the routine targeting of civilians. By the time the agreement collapsed in March 2026, CNN reported that over 100,000 Lebanese remained unable to return to their border towns due to ongoing shelling and the presence of five entrenched military positions the deal had supposedly eliminated.
For those still calling for more diplomacy, the lesson is stark: agreements with an adversary that does not respect sovereignty amount to managed surrender—where the occupier dictates the tempo of a slow-motion invasion.
Strategic Realities: The "Death Ground" and the French Precedent
To reclaim land from an enemy that believes it has a divine or historical right to that soil, one must look to the logic of history and strategy. Robert Greene, author of The 33 Strategies of War, argues that negotiation without leverage invites exploitation. An occupier withdraws only when its position becomes untenable—when the cost of remaining outweighs any strategic gain. This principle was evident in the French Resistance during World War II. While the Vichy government pursued accommodation, meaningful liberation began only when resistance groups imposed real costs on the occupation. What was taken by force was not returned through negotiation, but through sustained internal pressure that made continued control impossible.
The French example is particularly pointed for Lebanese critics of the resistance: the people of Paris did not wait for post-war conferences before launching their uprising. The resistance understood that what was taken by the force of the Wehrmacht would not be returned through the “civility” of the Vichy administration. In Lebanon, the same rule applies. History shows that “Israel” views Lebanese land as a strategic asset it “deserves” for its own security or expansion; it will not leave because of persuasion. It will leave only when the resistance makes every inch of that land a liability.
A Defining Choice: Dignity or Submission
As Lebanon faces the challenges of war, the domestic debate must shift from a false binary of “war or peace” to a realistic assessment of “resistance or submission.” The recurring failures of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions, combined with blatant violations of the 2024 brokered ceasefire, demonstrate that there is no international safety net for Lebanon.
The call for diplomacy alone is, in effect, a call to trust a system that has failed for half a century. With ceasefires collapsing and aggression persisting, the reality is unavoidable: borders are secured not by resolutions, but by the power that defends them. Future stability will not be found in the halls of Western capitals, but in the unwavering resolve of a people who understand that sovereignty is never gifted—it is taken back.
No comments:
Post a Comment