On November 20, 2024, amid the progress in the U.S.-brokered indirect negotiations between Isael and Hizbullah (which is represented in the negotiations by Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is the leader of the Amal Movement and is an ally of the organization), Ibrahim al-Amin, board chairman of the pro-Hizbullah Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, published an article in which he sharply criticized Hizbullah's opponents in Lebanon. According to him, Hizbullah's opponents do not act in the interests of Lebanon but rather serve the ambitions of the U.S., Europe, and the Gulf countries. Furthermore, they have adopted Israel's perception of Security Council Resolution 1701 and are calling to dismantle Hizbullah and turn the Lebanese army into a servant of Israel.
Al-Amin emphasized that Hizbullah is duty-bound to help achieve a ceasefire and that it is waiting to see the outcome of the negotiations. He clarified, however, that this does not mean the end of resistance, for Hizbullah regards the current conflict as just another round in the war with Israel, which must ultimately be eliminated, and will rebuild its military capabilities in order to continue pursuing this goal. No reasonable person, he added, would allow the Lebanese army to submit to Israel's will or allow international forces, NATO forces, or any other foreign element to treat Lebanon as a country under occupation.
Below are the main points of Al-Amin's article:[1]
Al-Amin begins by noting that "there are sectors, forces and figures in Lebanon who want to end the conflict with Israel and who demand the implementation of all the international resolutions that are aimed at achieving only one goal: the disarming of the resistance…" Hizbullah's opponents, he continues, fall into three groups. One large group is already present in all the state institutions. Another group comprises people who want to become part of all the government institutions "but hide this diplomatically. [These people] claim that Lebanon must return to 'the fold of international legitimacy,' refrain from angering the U.S., sever its relations with all U.S. enemies and comply with the international resolutions." The third group, which represents the ambitions of the U.S., Europe and the "oil and petrol Arabs," i.e., the Gulf states, calls openly to disarm Hizbullah and end the conflict with Israel, and wants "the entire world" to undertake this task. All three groups, explains Al-Amin, claim that Lebanon is responsible for the Israeli "aggression" because it did not fully implement Security Council Resolution 1701. They think the Lebanese should "ask Israel and the international community about the best way to implement this resolution and then comply with their desires."
Al-Amin notes that, according to Resolution 1701, UNIFIL forces stationed south of the Litani River are to "assist the Lebanese government in asserting its control by means of the Lebanese army, which is expected to deploy large forces throughout [South Lebanon] and prevent the presence of any arms or armed groups that do not submit to its authority." However, he wondered how Lebanon would "officially define the army's mission before dispatching it to the south, and what kind of assistance we want the international forces [i.e., UNIFIL] to provide in order to implement Resolution 1701."
Al-Amin stressed that this issue, i.e., the manner of implementing 1701 on the ground, "is the crux. This is the open question that can explode the negotiations currently taking place with the mediation of U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein… [Hizbullah's opponents] claim to be aligned with the U.S., Israel and the international forces in their perception of this task, [that is], the manner in which Resolution 1701 should be implemented. They all want to remove the weapons of the resistance fighters in the south, and want the army to do everything it can to ensure that no weapons remain in homes, farms or wadis throughout that region. Therefore, they want the Lebanese government to define the army's mission as one of defending Israel's security, even by force, if necessary.
"Yet not one of these [three] groups wants to task the Lebanese army with confronting Israeli violations, and the U.S. and international forces do not want this either. They will not provide [the army] with the necessary weapons to prevent the enemy from violating Resolution [1701]. All [the army] will be able to do is submit a complaint to the oversight committee, and it shouldn't even expect a response.
"These groups know that Israel will not behave in the same manner, and that the occupation army will not suffice with submitting complaints to the oversight committee and waiting for the results of the investigation. [The Israeli army] wants to take matters into its own hands. That is why Israel has clearly demanded, in talks with the Americans and in the draft agreement, to have the right to 'defend itself' and to address violations by itself, without encountering opposition from anyone inside or outside Lebanon. This is being discussed today…
"What can we say to these groups, and how can we explain to them that things don't work that way and that no reasonable person would agree to [define the Lebanese] army's mission as bowing to the will of the enemy, just in order to please the international community? How can we explain to them that we cannot let international forces, NATO forces or any other foreign force treat us as a country under occupation, and that nobody has the right to impose such options on an element that surely represents more than half of the Lebanese [i.e., Hizbullah]..."
Al-Amin concluded by saying: "[The need to] wait for the outcomes of the current negotiations is a given; ending the aggression [against us] is our right, and helping to reach an agreement that will stop the [Israeli] war machine is our duty. But it is [also] our right and our duty to clearly say that Israel will remain an enemy that must be eliminated, that Palestine is a land important to all of us, and that our people are an example of injustice [perpetrated] by the world's powerful forces…
"True, we are divided on the basic issue, and therefore honesty compels us to say very calmly that the end of this round of fighting with the enemy does not mean the end of the resistance, and that rebuilding the might of the resistance, in terms of manpower, capabilities and resources, is the task today, and it will gain momentum in the future, and at any point in time."
[1] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), November 20, 2024.
