Hezbollah anoints itself as “the Resistance” and unilaterally grants itself the right to be armed on the pretext that Israel is still occupying parts of Lebanon’s territory and is violating Lebanon’s airspace.
Therefore, if foreign occupation and violation of border integrity justify the right to bear arms, to be organized in an armed resistance movement and to be entitled to decide without consideration for anyone how, when and where to make use of these weapons, by the same logic, other groups may or should organize themselves into “resistances” to defend Lebanon from the attacks by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Furthermore, maybe resistance organizations should be necessary to liberate Lebanon from Iranian occupation.
For indeed, Lebanon is under Iranian occupation. Hezbollah’s doctrine and its leaders’ statements identify the party as being part of “The Nation” rather than Lebanon. Also, Hezbollah does not hide the fact that it is an integral part of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Furthermore, the party is financed and armed by Iran, and unequivocally and unashamedly proclaims that it takes its orders from Iran’s Supreme leader of the Islamic Revolution. Moreover, the Lebanese state has no free access to the zone occupied by the Iranian militia, and the Lebanese air force is barred from flying in the area under the threat of being shot down. Hezbollah does not act as a Lebanese entity but as an Iranian militia staffed by Lebanese nationals.
Accordingly, considering Iran’s occupation of parts of Lebanon and the attacks of Bashar al-Assad’s army, and based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Taif Accord and the ministerial statements ratified by all parties to parliament which puts the army and the Resistance on the same level of the Lebanese people, every Lebanese—or group of Lebanese—is entitled to form a “resistance” of their own, to carry weapons and to decide when and how to use these weapons to defend Lebanon. Hezbollah is not the Resistance; at best it can be a resistance or the “Islamic Resistance,” but more realistically it should be named ex-resistance as it has stopped acting in such a capacity since the Israeli army left Lebanon.
When it comes to the occupation of one’s country and facing military aggression, there can be no double standard. Similar threats are entitled to similar responses. However, given the danger associated with the proliferation of resistance movements, it would be better for the army to effectively defend all borders against any and all aggression, for the Internal Security Forces to effectively be in charge of security within all of the Lebanese territory, and for the Iranian militia—Hezbollah—to be disarmed and its occupied zone returned to Lebanese sovereignty.
A "Theobald Jew" Goes Spinning in Malaysia
1 hour ago