Who Dares to Question the Future of Arms After the Syrian Massacres?

Al Binaa

10-03-2025

• The debate over the resistance's weapons is no longer a legalistic discussion framed by the Taif Agreement, Resolution 1701, or the false claims propagated by those who insist the ceasefire agreement contains provisions that do not exist. Nor is it about those parroting American and Israeli diktats, attempting to tie reconstruction funds to the disarmament of the resistance, battles of rhetoric and politics that their proponents have waged and lost. The reason is simple: the resistance agreed to take a step back in favour of the state, withdrawing from South Litani to allow the state's pillars and certain Lebanese factions, though not hostile to the resistance, yet unenthusiastic about it, to test their faith in diplomacy. They naively believed that if the resistance steps back, then the Americans could pressure the occupying entity on Lebanon's behalf, particularly with a U.S.-friendly government in power.
Yet, since the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, the outcome has been nothing short of disillusioning. The violations committed against Lebanese lives, property, and sovereignty exceed mere infractions; they amount to an open-ended occupation, an unrestrained campaign of killing and destruction. The state stands powerless, not only incapable of action but even of protest, reduced to enforcing sovereignty only where it aligns with American approval, such as blocking funds that could aid reconstruction.
• Likewise, the discussion over the resistance's arms is no longer a matter of political pragmatism or national interest, framed by the question of 'how do we protect our country?' The answer has become painfully clear: wagering on appeasement, whether directed at Washington directly or at Tel Aviv indirectly or directly, hoping the occupation will relent it's aggression on Lebanon, has proven to be a recipe for failure. Nowhere is this failure more evident than in Syria, where a regime that once burned its own hands lighting candles for American and Israeli favour has been rewarded with nothing but devastation. It stripped itself of heavy weaponry, opened its airspace for the occupying entity to strike at will, destroying key Syrian military positions without restraint or a timeframe. It transformed Syria from a conduit of the Resistance Axis – a corridor sustaining the Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine – into a fragmented outpost severed from its role. By cutting ties with Iran and Hezbollah and sealing its borders with Iraq and Lebanon, Syria's reward was the unchecked expansion of the occupation, reaching the outskirts of Damascus. Today, 10,480 square kilometres, the sum of the three districts (Quneitra 1,200 square kilometres, Suwayda 5,550 square kilometres, and Daraa 3,730 square kilometres) – an area equivalent to, or slightly exceeding, Lebanon's entire landmass, have been declared an Israeli 'security zone', disarmed by demand. No one in Lebanon can delude themselves into believing that Lebanon can offer anything more to secure a better fate. The only viable path to protecting Lebanon lies in cultivating strength. Until the state itself becomes a source of sufficient power, it has no choice but to merge its legitimacy with that of its people and their means of defense including elements of their resistance's strength.
• The debate over the fate of the resistance's weapons has now transcended the realm of national interest, it has become existential. After the massacres along the Syrian coast, where thousands perished, one reality stands indisputable: Syria's new order will be one of two things. Either a duplicitous regime that harbours and sponsors mass murder, bearing direct responsibility for an orchestrated act of ethnic cleansing reminiscent of Gaza and South Lebanon, or a regime that, though it may espouse different rhetoric, lacks the authority to enforce it, leaving its armed factions free to impose their own brand of sectarian slaughter. In either case, the declared intent of these groups toward the Resistance's social base in Lebanon is clear. Given the state's limited capacity to confront such threats, exposed in the battles of Arsal years ago, and the likelihood of international and regional pressure to accommodate the new Syrian order, the stakes have been raised. Reports suggest that the broader plan to topple Syria's government follows a coordinated Turkish-Arab-Israeli-American strategy aimed at encircling and weakening the Resistance in Lebanon. Under this scheme, Syrian factions aligned with the new regime would be tasked with completing what Israel's war failed to accomplish, eradicating the Resistance.
Faced with this reality, the Resistance's social base will cling to its weapons with unyielding resolve, prepared to fight for them, even if it means defying its own leadership should it ever contemplate compromise. These arms are no longer just a means of national defense, they are a matter of survival. And survival is not just for the Resistance's supporters alone; it extends to all those who watched their brethren slaughtered along the coast, their cries of agony echoing unanswered, just as Patriarch John X Yazigi reminded the world in his speech yesterday.