Rubble and All-Out Resistance

There are ample reasons to recoil from the term debellatio. This barbaric legal concept denotes, in international law, the subjugation of a state and its eradication through armed violence. It refers to a situation of complete military, political, and legal annihilation of a given country as a result of devastating warfare—such as that experienced by Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars, or Nazi Germany at the fall of Berlin in May 1945.

And what about Lebanon? Is it not at risk of meeting a similar fate, supposedly in the name of the “acts of resistance” of the Hezb?

Normalization, but at what cost?

Does this mean that the Abraham Accords, in order to bind our country to their triumphant convoy, require a prior debellatio—that is, the subjugation of recalcitrant territories to the pax americana? These international agreements, concluded in 2020 between Israel and several Gulf states, indeed set in motion a process of diplomatic, economic, and security normalization between Arab regimes and the Hebrew state. In doing so, they relegated to fierce opposition the advocates of the so-called “axis of resistance” (al-mumana‘a), namely Iran and its three “H’s”: Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah.*

Once this process was launched, Lebanon would sooner or later be forced to choose its path. Yet the Hezb cannot accommodate such an “expedient,” which takes no account of the interests of its Iranian patron. It will therefore play the role of the spoiler, preventing any forward movement until a compromise is reached between the United States and the Islamic Republic of the mullahs—if such a compromise ever materializes. Needless to say, in the ongoing arm-wrestling match, Iran’s nuclear program has already supplanted the Palestinian question, now relegated to the sidelines. Natanz, Fordow, and other nuclear sites have become the principal stumbling blocks on the road to regional de-escalation.

A paradigm shift

Let us restate the issue: if the Abraham Accords threaten to cost us dearly as Lebanese, it is because they steer us toward normalization—something that would “upend the traditional balance based on Arab solidarity,” a solidarity cemented by hostility toward Israel. In short, were these Accords to be implemented, they would usher in a genuine paradigm shift.

That said, the Hezb, which holds the Lebanese state by the throat, cannot come to terms with abandoning armed struggle. Unless it receives a direct order from Tehran, it will not lay down its weapons: they constitute its very raison d’être and define its modus operandi. From its recalcitrant perspective, it is preferable to resist in support of Iran, and to embrace the martyrdom of Gaza, rather than submit to the demands of peace.

The allure of ruins

One nuance, however: with regard to the Hezb, the concept of debellatio can only be invoked metaphorically. From a legal standpoint, it does not apply, since the Party of God is not a state, but merely a politico-military organization.

Yet this valid objection is, in reality, little more than a rhetorical dodge. For it overlooks the fact that this Iranian-backed party has penetrated and entrenched itself at every level of Lebanese state. In its escalation, might it not be tempted to drag our country into a maelstrom—an impetuous whirlpool that sweeps everything in its path? Whether in the form of a direct clash with Israel, a confrontation with the Syrian regime, or, worse still, a senseless and devastating civil war.

The Hezb’s fascination with rubble hardly needs to be emphasized.

* Syria no longer appearing on the list of subservient actors.