By Mohamad Hammoud
A government that abandons its sovereign duty to protect its borders from foreign incursions forfeits the moral and legal right to disarm those who defend them.
The Lebanese cabinet’s recent declaration outlawing the Resistance marks a critical moment where administrative “legality” collides with the fundamental right of a people to survive. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s announcement banning military action outside official frameworks effectively criminalizes the Resistance while “Israel” continues to occupy Lebanese land. This move, widely seen as capitulation to US and “Israeli” pressure, ignores the reality that under international law, a government negotiating from a position of subservience ceases to represent the sovereign will. By prioritizing the demands of Western sponsors over the defense of the south, the current administration in Beirut has entered a state of “national unworthiness” similar to previous collaborationist regimes.
The Legal Framework for Resistance
The legitimacy of the Resistance is not granted by cabinet decree but grounded in the right to self-determination under international law. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/43 “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, and liberation from foreign occupation by all available means.” This principle stands regardless of attempts by domestic authorities to criminalize it.
Furthermore, Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention grants combatant status to organized forces defending their land, while Additional Protocol I protects armed groups resisting “alien occupation,” even when opposed by their own government. These provisions place legality on conduct and purpose, not state approval.
Therefore, the decisive question is not whether a government issues prohibitions, but whether it does so under external pressure, and whether the movement adheres to the laws of war while defending a population under threat.
Applying the Legal Standard
Recent Lebanese actions suggest that the current government is under external pressure to accommodate foreign actors, mainly the United States, “Israel,” and Gulf countries, rather than Lebanon’s interests. This is evident in the cabinet’s decision to outlaw the Resistance, which has been defending Lebanon against “Israeli” occupation. This decision, consistent with US, “Israeli,” and Western demands and serving the interests of “Israel,” indicates that key Lebanese national security decisions are being made under external influence.
Further proof that the current Lebanese government is a puppet operating under foreign orders comes from Reuters reporting that, during an Oval Office meeting on April 23, 2026, President Donald Trump expressed shock at Lebanese statutes known as anti-normalization laws, which criminalize engagement with the enemy. “I’ll make sure that law is changed,” Trump stated, signaling a blatant disregard for Lebanese sovereign jurisdiction and confidence in shaping Lebanese legislation. Despite this public vow to influence Lebanese law from Washington, neither President Joseph Aoun nor the prime minister issued a formal rebuke.
Accordingly, as long as foreign forces remain on Lebanese territory and the Lebanese government is constrained or unwilling to act, the responsibility for defense shifts to the Resistance, which derives its legitimacy from the people, not from a compromised cabinet, and from its conduct in war.
Historical Parallels of Betraying Governments
Historical precedents show that when a “legal” government acts as a proxy for an occupier, its decisions are relegated to the dustbin of history. During World War II, both the Vichy government in France and the Quisling administration in Norway held formal authority while collaborating with occupying forces and criminalizing resistance movements. In both cases, post-war legal and judicial processes nullified their authority, and their leaders were prosecuted for betraying national interests. The resistance movements in France and Norway drew their legitimacy not from these governments, but from their refusal to submit to occupation—establishing a precedent in which sovereignty was defined by resistance rather than formal decree.
These historical cases underscore a consistent principle: when a government functions under occupation or external control, its legal claims lose legitimacy in practice, and its authority is ultimately judged by history rather than formal status.
Conclusion: Sovereignty and the Right to Defend
The struggle for Lebanese sovereignty has moved beyond parliamentary debate to one of national survival. While the government in Beirut may continue issuing prohibitions to satisfy its Western patrons, the legitimacy of defense remains rooted in the soil of the south and the hearts of those who refuse to accept occupation. History has a long memory for those who collaborate and a high regard for those who resist. The path forward for Lebanon will not be dictated by foreign-penned laws, but by the unwavering commitment of Sayyed Nasrallah’s followers, who have vowed not to rest until they free their land.
No comments:
Post a Comment