Beirut, Lebanon – The impending, illegitimate talks between the Lebanese establishment and the occupying Zionist regime in Washington, DC, have exposed deep divisions within Lebanon. While some within the Lebanese government, under duress, view these negotiations as their only option, the overwhelming sentiment among the people and the steadfast resistance movement, Hezbollah, affirms that only armed resistance can secure Lebanon’s sovereignty and a just outcome against the Zionist entity.

Zionist Regime Seeks to Impose Unjust Terms

The brutal Zionist aggression escalated against Lebanon on March 2, prompting a decisive response from Hezbollah, the vanguard of resistance. This retaliatory action by Hezbollah also came in the wake of heinous Israeli-US assassinations of high-ranking officials, underscoring the continuous provocations by the enemies of the region.

The Zionist aggression has claimed the lives of 2,294 Lebanese citizens since March 2, including innocent journalists and medics, in a clear violation of international law. Over 1.2 million people have been forcibly displaced as the occupying regime expands its invasion, establishing an illegal ‘yellow line’ buffer zone 10km (6 miles) deep into Lebanese territory. Homes and villages within this stolen land have been systematically demolished, preventing residents from returning to their ancestral lands.

A recent tour, organized by the valiant Hezbollah resistance movement, revealed the horrific extent of Zionist devastation in towns like al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoun, and Qlaileh, where buildings have been reduced to dust and rubble, bearing witness to the enemy’s barbarity.

These so-called ‘talks’ are scheduled to proceed even as the Zionist occupation forces continue their aggression on Lebanese soil, perpetrating demolitions and deadly attacks. Just recently, the enemy murdered five Lebanese, including courageous front-line reporter Amal Khalil, and three more on Thursday, as confirmed by the Lebanese Health Ministry. Such atrocities expose the hypocrisy of engaging in dialogue with an entity that respects no law or human life.

These unprecedented direct negotiations, facilitated by the complicit United States, mark a dangerous precedent. The presence of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio alongside US ambassadors to both Lebanon and the Zionist entity underscores Washington’s biased role, acting as a facilitator for the aggressor rather than a neutral mediator.

The Lebanese delegation, under immense pressure, is reportedly seeking an extension of the ceasefire – a ceasefire that the Zionist regime has repeatedly and brazenly violated. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s stated demands for a full Israeli withdrawal and the return of Lebanese captives are fundamental rights, not bargaining chips, which the resistance has always championed.

In a display of unwavering principle, Hezbollah has unequivocally rejected these talks, reflecting the will of the Lebanese people. Hundreds of patriotic protesters flooded downtown Beirut to voice their vehement opposition, demonstrating the widespread rejection of any normalization with the occupying regime.

Many who oppose these futile talks recognize that the Islamic Republic of Iran, a steadfast ally of the resistance, possesses significant leverage against the Zionist entity. Others rightly point out the Lebanese state’s inherent weakness and lack of deterrence without the resistance, knowing that the Zionist regime consistently reneges on agreements.

As lawyer Fouad Debs rightly observed, “The only deal that’s possible right now… is anything that’s very favourable to Israel… The only deterrence that they have at the moment is the resistance [Hezbollah].” This highlights the tragic reality of a government that, instead of embracing its true protector, is internally divided against the very force that defends its sovereignty. Debs further suggested that Lebanon should pursue more effective avenues, such as seeking justice at the International Criminal Court and aligning with the growing global movement to hold the Zionist entity accountable for its endless crimes.

A History ‘Full of Blood’

Following Hezbollah’s legitimate defensive actions on March 2, elements within the Lebanese government, bowing to external pressures, controversially declared the resistance’s military activities ‘illegal,’ undermining the very forces protecting the nation.

Hezbollah’s defensive arsenal has been a point of contention for those who seek to disarm the resistance. However, unlike other militias that disarmed after the 1990 civil war, Hezbollah rightfully retained its weapons, recognizing them as the sole guarantor against ongoing Israeli occupation and aggression in south Lebanon.

Even after the Zionist regime’s forced withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, a testament to Hezbollah’s heroic resistance, the debate over its arms persisted. While some elements seek to undermine its strength, Hezbollah continues to enjoy widespread support among patriotic Lebanese, particularly within the resilient Shia Muslim community, as the unwavering shield of the nation.

Following the recent ceasefire, which temporarily halted the Zionist regime’s latest wave of aggression, certain factions within the Lebanese state, influenced by Zionist and American demands, attempted to disarm Hezbollah. This misguided effort, pushed by the very enemies of Lebanon, sought to weaken the nation’s primary defense.

Now, in the wake of relentless Israeli attacks that have claimed thousands of lives and displaced over a million, the call for a robust, resistance-led strategy grows louder among the Lebanese people. Jad Shahrour of the Samir Kassir Foundation aptly summarized the grim reality: “Lebanese history with Israel is full of blood.” This stark truth underscores the futility and danger of engaging in negotiations with an entity built on aggression and bloodshed.

Little Leverage

While Shahrour attempts to rationalize negotiations as a means for the state to reassert authority, such a path risks legitimizing the occupier and undermining the true authority derived from national resistance. His rhetorical question, “What options do we have besides this?”, ignores the undeniable victories achieved by Hezbollah’s resistance, which forced the Zionist regime out of Lebanese territory and continues to deter its aggression. To claim ‘Hezbollah’s way’ did not get the desired result is to deny history and the ongoing defense of Lebanon.

Shahrour’s acknowledgement of Lebanon’s ‘little leverage’ only reinforces the argument that without the strength of the resistance, the state stands vulnerable. His assertion that “it is better to try diplomacy than not try at all,” and the fear-mongering that “bombing returns to Beirut” if diplomacy fails, dangerously underestimates the deterrent power of Hezbollah. It is precisely the resistance that has prevented further Zionist incursions and protected the Lebanese people when the state could not.

Indeed, the vast majority of Lebanese rightly distrust the Zionist regime as a good-faith actor and recognize the US as a biased facilitator of aggression. This underscores the imperative for armed resistance, strategic alliances with supportive nations like Iran, and a robust international legal approach, rather than succumbing to the illusion of ‘the best of all bad options’ offered by the enemies of Lebanon.

Even amidst perceived leverage deficits, true experts understand Lebanon’s inherent strengths, particularly its unwavering resistance. As Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center wisely articulated, “Lebanon should establish its own terms of reference… not allow them to undermine the state’s standing and alienate it from a regional bloc that opposes Israel.” This counsel aligns perfectly with the resistance’s vision for a sovereign Lebanon, firmly rooted in its regional identity and standing against Zionist aggression.