Don't "clone" Hezbollah and risk losing Lebanon

Unfortunately, the main topic of conversation is no longer a demand for a strong state or the extension of its authority across all of Lebanon — or even the restriction of weapons to the army and to law enforcement.

Instead, voices are calling for the cloning of Hezbollah. They want to take up arms and—if they must—ignite a civil war. Some are adopting slogans of self-defence — similar to Hezbollah's militia.

Not the first time

This isn't the first instance of a truck loaded with weapons for Hezbollah on the streets of Lebanon. But this time, fate intervened via a traffic accident, revealing concealed cargo.

It's unsettling to consider how many weapon-laden trucks belonging to Hezbollah might have quietly traversed this very highway or others like it, evading notice, whether before or after this accident. The ease with which weapons and other goods move in and out of Lebanon is widely acknowledged, raising questions about surveillance and control.

The memory of Hezbollah's seizure of Beirut and the mountains remains fresh. The elected government's efforts to extend state authority over the airport and communications sector triggered Hezbollah's intervention.

This wasn't a clash between Sunnis, Druze, or other groups as some suggest, justifying Hezbollah's actions. Instead, it was a day when the state's integrity crumbled.

The absence of military intervention was striking.

Instead of acting, the army observed the incursion into Beirut and the mountains, pre-occupied with concerns of sectarian division or an inability to challenge a transnational militia like Hezbollah.

For those who believe in the concept of a unified state, these considerations do not excuse their inaction.

Hezbollah's foray across the Syrian border, alongside its personnel and equipment, exposed its involvement with the Syrian regime in suppressing the Syrian uprising. During this period, people questioned where was the army in all of this and were shocked at just how weak the government had become.

Now, these people are the ones calling for a civil war. They are the same people who previously held bilateral talks with Hezbollah. They have even shared governance with the party within the same cabinet—both after its takeover of Beirut and following its engagement in the Syrian conflict.

Another way forward

My words should not be understood, in any way, shape or form, as acceptance or submission to the logic of force and intimidation imposed by this terrorist militia. But war is no picnic. The way to confront this sectarian militia cannot be another sectarian militia.

And whoever calls for a clash between the army and Hezbollah, have you seen what is happening in Sudan, where thousands of corpses are lying on the streets? Can you see how foreign agendas have seeped into the conflict between the army and the militias?

Lebanon has been stuck in a bottleneck for years, and no promising resolution seems to be on the horizon.

Dialogue in Lebanon is neither a means nor an end. It is merely a way to control the conflict and facilitate everyday life for the people – if Hezbollah does not object to that.

Yes, the picture is bleak. It's clear that the path to progress is a rocky one, particularly if the objective is to establish a strong state and consolidate its control over weapons – something that we are nowhere near.

Within this context, a direct armed clash might just serve to strengthen Hezbollah's grip on both the nation and the state.

Instead of pursuing such an approach, and risking an inadvertent outcome, a more constructive way forward might involve a robust political strategy and non-violent political engagement.

Non-sectarian, peaceful civil resistance could be an effective countermeasure against a transnational sectarian militia.

Anything else might only play into Hezbollah's narrative and its anti-state, anti-Lebanon agenda.