Mohamad Hammoud
The newly minted Washington ceasefire agreement between the Lebanese government and “Israel” exposes the human cost of a peace built on imbalance.
Brokered under American mediation, the joint statement claims to revive a faltering truce, yet in reality, it demands a surrender that no nation, let alone its people, could accept. The fine print asks the Lebanese Resistance to put down their arms and walk away from their homes, land, and sense of security. As The Guardian highlighted, the text sets all terms on the halt of Hezbollah’s activities and the withdrawal of its fighters from the South Litani Sector.
In a defiant response aired on Al-Manar television, Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem made it clear that demanding fighters to abandon southern Lebanon while under fire is nothing less than a demand for “surrender, defeat, and achieving the enemy’s goals.” Forcing a local defense force to leave its ancestral heartland- while “Israeli” troops remain dug in- robs Lebanon of more than just a military asset; it strips families and communities of the very sense of protection and belonging that has allowed them to survive.
This agreement, by insisting on the withdrawal of the only group that has ever held “Israeli” ambitions in check, tries to accomplish with foreign signatures and distant negotiations what months of violent war could not achieve. It is not just a policy failure; it is a human one.
The Tripartite Alliance Against the Resistance
The mechanics of this agreement reveal a troubling alliance, pushing the Lebanese government and “Israel” onto the same side against a segment of Lebanon’s own people. Reuters reports that American negotiators encouraged both states to create pilot zones, turning parts of southern Lebanon into areas controlled only by the Lebanese Armed Forces with all other groups excluded. For many Lebanese, this feels as though their government is being asked to police its own streets for the benefit of “Israel.”
The hypocrisy is palpable: Western diplomats talk about sovereignty, but their demands force Lebanon’s leaders to act as enforcers for foreign security agendas. By signing away the presence of non-state armed groups, Lebanon’s elite risks aligning with a historic adversary to dismantle its own grassroots defense.
This ignores the reality that the resistance is not just a political player but is woven into families and communities. The Washington agreement transforms Lebanon from an independent state into a proxy-expected to serve the security wishes of Washington and "Tel Aviv", even at the expense of its own cohesion.
The Imminent Threat of Internal Collapse
The fatal flaw of this agreement is that it risks plunging Lebanon into internal conflict. Any real attempt by Beirut to enforce these foreign demands could mean Lebanese fighting Lebanese. The Associated Press has reported the doubts of regional military experts, who question whether the Lebanese Army could-or should-try to oust fighters defending their own neighborhoods and families. This is not just a matter of military strength; it’s about the impossibility of ordering soldiers to turn against their own communities. Forcing the army into this role under outside pressure doesn’t bring peace-it threatens to tear the country apart. If Lebanon’s leaders move forward, they risk civil war. The architects of this agreement have chosen to gamble with the safety of ordinary Lebanese families to serve foreign interests.
A Legacy of Institutionalized Impunity
The cynicism of this diplomatic exercise is clear when looking at Lebanon’s past. The country has tried compliance before.
Hezbollah once pulled back from the border for over a year, giving diplomacy every chance. For ordinary people, this meant living with uncertainty and fear, hoping the world would keep its promises. But during those months, the “Israeli” military breached the ceasefire repeatedly-crossing into Lebanese airspace, shelling villages, and provoking on the border- while world powers looked away. As L’Orient-Le Jour chronicled, Western mediators have never truly held “Israel” accountable, instead demanding unwavering obedience from Lebanon.
The new Washington framework is just another trap, asking the Lebanese to surrender their defenses for empty promises, while “Israel” keeps its right to strike whenever it chooses. Stripping away Lebanon’s protection leaves families exposed, repeating a cycle of broken promises and danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment