Listen to the article
In a statement released last Wednesday in Beirut, the Hamas movement reported the deaths of four of its combatants, among them two Turkish, during Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon the previous day. This disclosure from the Palestinian fundamentalist organization came at a crucial moment, coinciding with an escalated situation along the border with Israel in the days preceding the ceasefire, which came into effect on Friday, 24. The escalation resulted in a significant loss of lives among Hezbollah ranks.
The artillery exchanges on both sides of the Blue Line and the daily aerial assaults targeting southern villages have persisted unabated since the tragic events of October 7. This relentless cycle of violence has resulted in a substantial loss of human lives, widespread destruction, the forced exodus of tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens, and significant damage to agricultural lands.
Considering the unique Lebanese perspective, it is crucial now to bluntly raise certain undoubtedly troublesome questions. This should be approached without complacency, aggression, or any resentment.
Given the imminent threat of an all-out war looming over the country, is it not reasonable to address the situation in the south with a focus on Lebanon’s interests without being primarily and automatically accused of “treason”? Shouldn’t a lambda (or average citizen) be entitled to question the rationale behind Hamas’ deployment in the south without being branded as a “collaborator”? Moreover, in this particular context, what is the objective of deploying Turkish combatants within the UNIFIL zone? Could there also be militiamen of other nationalities involved?
However, a multi-faceted question of paramount importance, which may be deemed “naive” by some, must be discussed with utmost transparency: for what (well-defined) purpose, for what (authentic) cause, from what perspective, and to serve whose interests, have dozens of Hezbollah combatants and civilians, including several journalists, lost their lives at the border since October 7? What about the overarching interest of Lebanon and that of the Lebanese population in this regard?
Today, once more, the Lebanese populace is confronted with the foremost peril of trivializing this established state of war. This acknowledged fact has been coercively imposed by a singular theocratic party, whose strategic decisions, particularly those pertaining to war and peace, originate from a higher regional authority, namely the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei. This authority defines its positions based on a transnational political agenda and a state rationale crafted by the mullahs of Tehran. Some may argue that denouncing such a militia-imposed fact reflects an “isolationist” attitude that overlooks the global and “worldwide” nature of the current conflict.
Nonetheless, it is swiftly forgotten that the Lebanese populace has borne the brunt and endured the aftermath of conflicts and wars in the region for more than half a century. During the same period, certain Arab countries were signing peace agreements with Israel (including the PLO), while others maintained undisclosed relations with the Hebrew State behind the scenes.
The outcome of these fifty years of challenges imposed on Lebanon has, on the regional stage, witnessed the fragmentation of several Arab countries — particularly those under Iranian influence (though this is undoubtedly due to… coincidence!). Throughout its contemporary history, Lebanon has never faced a state of widespread deliquescence and comprehensive deconstruction as pronounced as the current situation.
Given such realities, it would be a gross crime against the Lebanese people to expect them to endure another war of attrition without clear horizons or specific objectives. Such a scenario would only serve the boundless hegemonic aims of certain power-thirsty mullahs in Tehran, who persistently seek to plunge the entire Middle East into a theocratic era reminiscent of times long gone.
“Let my people live,” pleaded Ghassan Tueni at the United Nations podium during the 1980 Lebanese crisis, a time when he held the role of Lebanon’s ambassador to the United Nations. Several decades later, this heartfelt appeal still holds true and is now more poignant than ever.
