Right, so Israel and the disarmament of Hezbollah, Netanyahu’s bunch are stamping their tiny feet over the issue even as they continue to attack Lebanon and continue to occupy at least 5 sites in the south of the country, but the question of who controls the weapons in Lebanon, Hezbollah or the state has long been framed by Hawkish US administration mouthpieces as a matter of terrorism versus legitimacy, as in are they held by Hezbollah or by the Lebanese state, when the truth is its always been both in the simplest sense, but the reality of this picture going forwards is becoming more complicated as the US senses the time might be right to push to see full Hezbollah disarmament, a massive win for Israel as this would be. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has declared that 2025 must be the year when all weapons in Lebanon fall under state control, yet he acknowledges a fundamental truth at the same time in that Hezbollah will not disarm as long as Israel occupies Lebanese land.
The ball, as Lebanon has repeatedly stated therefore, is in Israel’s court if they want Hezbollah to disarm, the easy answer in theory would be to get out of Lebanon completely, yet Israel have no intention of doing so. Five Israeli outposts remain in southern Lebanon, a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, but its Israel so when does international law every apply or get enforced? Israel continues to launch attacks on Lebanese soil, killing civilians under the pretext of targeting Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the United States, rather than pressuring Israel to withdraw, has instead demanded Hezbollah’s unilateral disarmament and are now resorting to using economic blackmail and political interference to force Lebanon’s hand.
This is not a neutral peace process, or even one that benefits Lebanon despite Lebanese territory being what is involved here - it is a US-Israeli strategy to dismantle resistance, weaken Lebanon’s sovereignty, and ensure Israel’s military dominance in the region. While Israel occupies Lebanese land and bombs its villages, Washington insists that Hezbollah must lay down its arms first and as you can imagine, that’s not gone down too well.
Right, so Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has expressed a commitment to bringing all weapons under state control by the end of 2025, but this is a pretty big ask with Israel still attacking and occupying territory in southern Lebanon, still taking lives, still destroying infrastructure given Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon, both political and militant as it is and its easy to forget where Hezbollah came from, but we all ought to be more mindful of it given who is committing the atrocities in Lebanon right now.
Hezbollah emerged in 1982 as a response to Israeli invasions of Lebanon and at the same time an absence of a strong central authority. They are a monster of Israel’s own making just as Hamas is and over the years, it has positioned itself as a defender of Lebanese sovereignty, particularly in the face of Israeli aggression, having been part of successive Lebanese governments for a number of years now. Hezbollah maintains that its armed resistance however, remains necessary due to the threat Israel's poses to their borders, an argument that the presence of the UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL seems to very much bear out, not to mention UN Resolution 1701 forbidding Israel to cross Lebanon’s borders and yet there they are, occupying five locations with no intention of leaving. The group's leadership has emphasised that disarmament is contingent upon a full Israeli withdrawal and cessation of hostilities as part of an ongoing Lebanese defence strategy, so they aren’t completely dismissing out of hand Joseph Aoun’s goal it would seem, merely making it clear that Israel must go first, hence the ball very much being in Israel’s court as many in Lebanon have put it.
Israel's retention of five military outposts in southern Lebanon, despite claims of withdrawal, is a clear violation of international law and a significant obstacle to peace and that Hezbollah disarmament therefore. Adding to that is the fact Israel have no intention of leaving – ever. Israel’s maniac of a Defence Minister Israel Katz's recent statement indicated that Israeli troops will remain in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria indefinitely has just further exacerbated tensions and undermined efforts toward a lasting peace agreement, its all take and no give with them, despite them being the invaders occupying another nations sovereign territory.
Of course, one reason for their boldness is the protection of the United States and that the US always puts Israel above any other nation in the Middle East, its racist, colonial project must survive above all else as should be blatantly obvious to all by now. The United States has always and will always align its policies to support Israeli interests in the region and where Lebanon is concerned, none have made that more vocally obvious than Trump’s envoy to the area, Morgan Ortagus. Ortagus has been particularly vocal in advocating for Hezbollah's disarmament, having likened the group to a cancer that must be eradicated, flying in the face of Aoun’s remarks that Hezbollah disarmament is a delicate matter and being too heavy handed with them would likely spark civil war in the country. It seems for Israel’s sake Lebanon’s US envoy, would take that option, disregarding such concerns because they would benefit Israel, destabilising another neighbouring state would suit the US just fine and the legitimate security concerns of various groups within the Lebanon? Well who cares about them?
President Aoun's plan includes the consolidation of all weapons under state control, aiming to strengthen Lebanon's sovereignty and stability. However, this objective requires Hezbollah to perceive that its role as a resistance force is no longer necessary. The group's willingness to disarm is contingent upon Israel's full withdrawal from Lebanese territories and a cessation of hostilities as ought to be obvious to anyone capable of logical and rational thought. Hezbollah's leadership has indicated that while they have exercised restraint in response to Israeli violations, something Aoun himself has acknowledged as well, this patience is not indefinite and the language of people like Israel Katz isn’t going to help and certainly nor will the ongoing atrocities Israel are continuing to commit. A statement from Aoun published by The Cradle on all of these points reads:
‘Hezbollah has no intention of being dragged into a new war.
I’m working to make 2025 the year when all weapons are exclusively under state control.
We will not replicate the Popular Mobilization Forces model to integrate Hezbollah into the army, nor allow it to exist as an independent unit within the military.
Hezbollah members can join the army and undergo integration training, just as members of other parties did at the end of the Lebanese civil war.
Speaker Nabih Berri and I are in full agreement on all matters, especially on the need to centralize arms under the state.
The Americans know that normalization or peace talks with Israel are not on the table right now.
I did not discuss forming diplomatic committees to handle sensitive files with Israel during my talks with Morgan Ortagus.
I told Ortagus that Israel’s presence in the five disputed points gives Hezbollah a justification.
I also told Ortagus that we want to disarm Hezbollah, but without sparking a civil war in Lebanon.
Hezbollah has shown restraint and a high level of awareness during this period. It has acted responsibly by not responding to Israeli violations.
A decision has been made to confine weapons to the state. The question now is how to implement it, which I believe should be through bilateral dialogue between the presidency and Hezbollah.’
So even Aoun is acknowledging that Hezbollah don’t want war and of course there are parliamentarians within Hezbollah who would relay such information. He doesn’t fancy going down the road Iraq did with their Popular Mobilisation Front by integrating Hezbollah into the army, though he has said they can join up if they wish to. Normalising relations with Israel is off the table, as it should be when they are an invading force at this point. Ortagus has been telling porkies about diplomatic committees and put the word on her regarding wishing to avoid civil war, which wouldn’t bother her at all it seems as aforementioned, as well as pointing out Hezbollah won’t disarm with Israel still occupying five areas of the south of the country, and praised Hezbollah for their restraint, dialogue surrounding their disarmament a conversation for Hezbollah and the Lebanese state to have together, bilaterally, so butt out Ortagus!
Sadly, like many in the Trump administration, there is fat chance of that.
On the matter of forcibly disarming Hezbollah and in response to a speech given by Naim Qassem, where it was reported that he said:
‘We will not allow anyone to disarm the resistance. You must remove this idea from the lexicon. Disarming the resistance means serving the enemy and this civil war will not happen.’
That, for context’s sake, was not in response to Joseph Aoun, but US and Israeli plans to force the issue if it means giving ground to either the US or Israel in relation to Lebanese sovereignty. Ortagus quote tweeted this by simply typing ‘yawn.’
She also took a swipe at the former leader of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party, the Druze politician Walid Jumblatt who after saying on Al-Araby TV that her demands were impossible to meet, by saying crack is whack, appearing to imply that Jumblatt must be on drugs. Well hold your horses there missus, you took a job on behalf of Donald Trump. I think there’s a saying about glass houses and throwing stones that might be relevant here.
Lebanon's path to sovereignty and stability is inextricably linked to the resolution of its conflict with Israel and only then will it be realistically possible to consider the disarmament of Hezbollah with Hezbollah. However, this process is hindered by Israel's continued occupation of Lebanese territories and the influence of external powers that prioritise their strategic interests over Lebanon's sovereignty and for the US Israel will always, always, always come first and even now, with all the attacks coming from Israel, a recent drone strike in Beirut again, that’s not southern Lebanon, another assassination attempt as that was, for as long as Israel remains in Lebanon there can be no peace. Yet even now the US acts against them, having placed a veto on other gulf states, blocking them from offering Lebanon financial aid to rebuild until they’ve got their way for Israel’s benefit.
I personally cannot see what benefit there is to Lebanon right now in continuing dialogue with the likes of Morgan Ortagus, who isn’t interested in Lebanon, yet isolated as Hezbollah are from their allies now, thanks to Syria’s fall and Israeli invasion, it’s a nation caught between a rock and a hard place and without support from other gulf states, is it realistic to believe Hezbollah won’t take up arms again in due course? Do let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Meanwhile, and I’ve pondered previously given their advancements in a relatively short space of time as to whether they could reach Lebanon with rocket fire, given they’ve hit Haifa, which is not all that far from the Israeli, Lebanese border, the Houthis are once again giving the US a headache. Having repelled US attacks by sea and by air, the US is now plotting a ground invasion, but have the Houthis knobbled that idea already as well? Check out this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch to find out all about that. Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you have not already done so, so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as supporting the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.