The concept of counter-revolutions is far from novel. Throughout history, each revolution has been met with an opposing force determined to challenge the revolutionaries and regain lost ground. As political movements evolved alongside society, the nature of revolutions changed, increasingly relying on military coups, shifts in power dynamics and realignments in alliances.
Lebanon’s contemporary history offers many similar examples.
Following the French withdrawal from Lebanon, a series of retaliatory actions occurred — including bombings, arrests and kidnappings — allegedly carried out by individuals with ties to the French regime. However, these operations swiftly ceased as the French acknowledged that their role in the region had concluded, and that the post-World War II era marked a fundamental shift.
A similar pattern unfolded after Syria's departure from Lebanon. Operatives orchestrated bombings and security disturbances to destabilize the country, suggesting that chaos would ensue without Syria's role as a "regulating force."
The underlying message was clear: Lebanon could not maintain security on its own.
Naturally, the Syrian backlash was more significant than the French one, given Syria’s complex and intelligence-driven role in Lebanon, which contrasted with the French mandate.
At the national level, no side was able to overpower the other, largely due to these counter-revolutions, particularly in 1959, following the famous declaration about reaping the rewards of the 1958 revolution. At that time, the Christians regained the upper hand, making it clear that they would not accept any attempts to weaken their position.
Thus, every revolution brings its own consequences, reactions and lessons to be learned.
What is unfolding in the region today, especially since September 27 — the day of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s assassination — along with its security, political and military consequences for the region, indicates that the current unrest is taking the opposite course.
After Hezbollah's defeat on the battlefield and the signing of the humiliating agreement imposed on the pro-Iranian group, former allies and resistance figures began to reveal a new political identity. This transformation is significant, as they now present themselves as proponents of freedom, coexistence and dialogue with the "other," despite years of authoritarian rule. The former axis now advocates for consensus and unity, asserting that Lebanon cannot move forward without the participation of all its people, without exception.
The same pattern emerged after Assad’s downfall. Artists came forward, admitting that they had been oppressed and despised Assad, yet had been compelled to publicly express their loyalty to him. Even those allies, who had been groomed by Assad’s regime and placed on Lebanese platforms and screens to defend Syria, its Arab identity and Assad’s rule, began to expose scandals and level accusations against him, acknowledging that his era was over.
Those same people realized that his time had come to an end and that they were now seeking to secure a place for themselves in the new political order, much like some of those who were loyal to the Syrian regime after the 2005 withdrawal from Lebanon. These counter-revolutions should not be embraced by the Lebanese people. The Lebanese people should not embrace these counter-revolutions, as they do not represent genuine revolutions but rather acts of denial — efforts to distort reality to secure positions in the evolving political landscape.
Don’t let them deceive you. Don’t buy into their hypocrisy, as they are driven by a desire for power or to justify their vile actions. Don’t buy into their so-called revolution — it is nothing more than a disguised counter-revolution, meant to regain control and secure positions under a new guise. That will not happen, because we are fully aware of what you’re doing.
Comments