The Resistance, Weapons, and the Ministerial Statement

Al Binaa

18-02-2025

• If we say that the ministerial statement meets national expectations from the perspective of the resistance and its supporters as a major national choice, and we invite some hot-headed individuals to imagine that the Islamic Resistance were renamed 'Islamic Defense' and the National Resistance became 'National Defense', since both liberation and defense ultimately serve as protection against ongoing aggression against Lebanon, and since resistance is but a tool of this defense, then perhaps they should reread the ministerial statement. After all, the issue has never been about terminology but rather the essence of the required stance. Such a realisation might very well leave them in shock, especially after being struck by two blows to their assumptions: first, by the President's remarks on national dialogue as a framework for discussing the future of the resistance's weapons; and second, by the Speaker of Parliament – the architect and custodian of the ceasefire agreement – who reaffirmed that the agreement is strictly confined to South of the Litani, while the resistance's weapons north of the Litani remain a matter for national dialogue.
• Returning to the ministerial statement, the affirmation of the state's exclusive right to bear arms was never a point of contention for those aligned with the resistance. The debate, rather, has always centered on whether the state demonstrates the competence required to fully uphold this right. Any failure in fulfilling this duty inevitably elevates another right above it: the people's legitimate right to self-defense, as recognised by the UN Charter. The reference to this charter in the statement was not arbitrary; it explicitly acknowledges the right of both the state and its people – individually and collectively, to defend themselves. If, as the statement declares, the state is now prepared to assume the responsibility of defense and liberation, then this is a commendable and promising development, worthy of recognition and follow-up. The real test lies in translating these intentions into concrete actions that would enable the state to exercise its exclusive right to arms, whether gradually or all at once. The ministerial statement asserts that the state envisions its army as one with a clear combat doctrine, tasked with defense and liberation, and that it intends to equip and empower it accordingly. Those familiar with the matter know that the starting point for this path is well-defined: the acquisition of an air defense system capable of curbing continuous Israeli violations – an initiative all Lebanese eagerly anticipate seeing the government undertake.
• A state that seeks to assert its exclusive right to bear arms must also restore to the residents of its border regions the sense of security they enjoyed when the resistance protected them for 18 years, from 2006 to 2024. This is the true measure of the state's success in fulfilling its duty, without which, any claim to a monopoly on arms becomes void. What matters more than who holds the weapons is the impact their possession has on national sovereignty and on the people's sense of safety and reassurance. Given that the resistance has fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from the area south of the Litani, placing it exclusively under state authority – where the state holds a monopoly on arms – this presents a golden opportunity to integrate three key tracks outlined in the ministerial statement: the state's commitment to defense and liberation, the development and armament of the army, and the initiation of discussions on a comprehensive defense policy within a broader national security strategy encompassing diplomatic, economic, and military dimensions. Meanwhile, the occupying entity has openly stated its refusal to withdraw from parts of the land it occupies, in addition to maintaining its occupation of other areas along the Blue Line, such as the Lebanese part of Ghajar and territories left unresolved since 2000 between the Blue Line and the armistice line.
• The ministerial statement is a step in the right direction. The true challenge lies in upholding its commitments and swiftly translating them into actionable plans – an endeavor that requires a cooperative spirit between the state and the resistance, far removed from the fantasies and illusions of some.