The conflict between two opposing forces ends when one of them decisively loses or gains in power. Faced with the horror of the occupation’s genocidal power, its successes, and its threats, it is natural for the human mind, always seeking safety, to search for solutions that will spare Lebanon further oppression and occupation. What if Hezbollah surrendered its weapons? What if the Lebanese army entered the Southern suburb of Beirut? What if Sheikh Naim Qassem announced this, or what if President Joseph Aoun announced that? Can the fire of expansionist Zionism really be extinguished? And how, on the other hand, can Lebanon build the capacity to confront it?

Can the fire of expansionist Zionism be extinguished?

In 1919, the World Zionist Organization presented a map of “Israel” that included southern Lebanon. Chaim Weizmann returned and demanded this from France in the same year. Then, in 1937, Ben-Gurion confirmed that the Jewish state would expand to the Litani River after its establishment.

In 1919, the World Zionist Organization presented a map of “Israel” that included southern Lebanon. Chaim Weizmann returned and demanded this from France in the same year. Then, in 1937, Ben-Gurion confirmed that the Jewish state would expand to the Litani River after its establishment.

In 1948, he (unsuccessfully) proposed that the Zionist government do so. In 1955, the occupation government discussed “Operation Omar,” which was based on igniting a Lebanese civil war that would enable them to occupy southern Lebanon. During the 1967 war, it focused on the occupation of the West Bank, but emphasized the need to occupy southern Lebanon at a later date.

The colony then occupied Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, but the Lebanese resistance gradually forced it to retreat from Beirut, then Sidon, Tyre, Nabatieh, and the Western Bekaa, leading to the near complete liberation of Lebanese territory in 2000. However, it did not give up on its goal. In 2024, Minister Smotrich stated that Israel would expand to Damascus, and Minister Eliyahu shared a map that included Lebanon in “Israel.” In 2025, Netanyahu stated that his mission was to realize the dream of “Greater Israel” and that the war was not only in Gaza but would “redraw the map of the Middle East.” In 2026, he repeated this statement, while the leader of the opposition, Lapid, affirmed that Israel’s borders are the biblical borders, extending to the Euphrates, and that the entity will expand as much as possible.

READ: Arab League accuses Israel of seeking to dismember Lebanon

Can the fragmenting effect of Zionism be avoided?

The claimed legitimacy of the “State of Israel,” that is, its raison d’être, is that it is a Jewish state. In this respect, it differs from countries such as Syria and Iran, whose current regimes have chosen religious legitimacy but who can choose other paths. The Baath regime fell, but Syria remained; and if the HTS regime falls, Syria will remain. The Shah’s regime fell, but Iran remained; and if the Islamic Republic falls, Iran will remain. But if the Jewish occupation state falls, Israel will not remain—Israel itself is this identity-based entity, and not merely a regime or system of government. Therefore, the colony desperately needs to be surrounded by religious entities. That is why it has weaponised the identities of the Druze and Bedouins in Palestine, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, the Christians in Sudan, the Shiites in Azerbaijan, the Amazigh in the Maghreb, the Hindus in India, and even participated in the extermination of the Maya in Guatemala. Therefore, the mere existence of the Jewish state poses a threat to the cohesion of Lebanese society.

In light of all the above, is it logical to believe that there is something we can do to quell the Zionist threat to Lebanon, its land and its society? There is no point, then, in searching for “solutions” such as those proposed in the introduction. The only solution is to build the capacity to confront this project until it is completely defeated. This conclusion does not come from an Islamic, nationalist, or leftist ideology, but from an analysis of the reality of the Zionist project.

READ: Israel plans to occupy 1st line of villages in southern Lebanon: Israeli media

How can Lebanon build the capacity to confront its enemy?

Occupation is a disaster. But the inability to resist, deter, confront, and liberate is much more dangerous, inasmuch as the lack of immunity is more dangerous than disease. If the enemy manages to occupy the land, Lebanon can liberate it again. But if society disintegrates in the face of the enemy, who will resist the occupation and carry out the liberation? So how can giving up arms, regardless of any disagreement or contradiction with those waging the fight, be a solution?

Some who previously supported the weapons of the resistance and now call for their abandonment justify this by saying that weapons deterred and liberated in the past, but they do not deter or liberate today. This is true. It is not surprising, as war is a succession of battles, not all of which are guaranteed to be victories. But what is the solution when we are too weak to win a battle—Is it to weaken ourselves further or to build our capacity? If one’s clothes are not enough to shield them from the cold, should they get rid of their clothes or wear even more?

Crucially, armed resistance is not the only way to fight back. The enemy confronts us with weapons, economics, media, narrative, and more; and we must confront them with weapons, economics, media, narrative, and more.

Crucially, armed resistance is not the only way to fight back. The enemy confronts us with weapons, economics, media, narrative, and more; and we must confront them with weapons, economics, media, narrative, and more.

It is noteworthy that the resistance held out in the valleys and hills of Jabal Amel until the last moment of 2024, but it was the “internal front,” i.e., society, was too weak to hold out. There were no shelters, no relief, no housing, no medical care, no industry, including arms manufacturing, no compulsory civil and military service, no legal efforts, no war media, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, Lebanon did not take advantage of the ceasefire, or rather of the reduction in the pace of killing, to implement a political program to build capacity at these levels.

In particular, the colony politicises identities to target and fragment societies.

Its prime minister addressed Lebanese citizens not as Lebanese, but as Maronites, Sunnis, Shiites, and Druze. We hear him speak of Druze autonomy, of Kurdish cantons, of Shiite and Sunni axes. Should Lebanon confront this fragmenting logic by… adopting it?

Its prime minister addressed Lebanese citizens not as Lebanese, but as Maronites, Sunnis, Shiites, and Druze. We hear him speak of Druze autonomy, of Kurdish cantons, of Shiite and Sunni axes. Should Lebanon confront this fragmenting logic by… adopting it?

Today’s displacement crisis highlights the depth of this issue. The resistance adopted a sectarian logic, so the enemy targeted that sect, and displaced it. Those who refuse to welcome displaced are refusing to support “others,” and even those who welcome them are supporting “others.”

Of course, the aggression is being imposed on us. So what can we in Lebanon do? Today, we embrace our displaced people and stand behind our resistance fighters who are confronting the occupation in the field. Tomorrow, we carry out a project to transfer the responsibility and honor of confronting the enemy from an organization-sect to society, and from an impotent non-state to a capable state, and we establish its legitimacy together.

OPINION: Rethinking solidarity with Palestine

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor