Assessing the Lebanese Army’s Capability to Protect Southern Lebanon from Israeli Expansion

This article discusses the implications of Israeli expansionist policies in Southern Lebanon, examining the effectiveness and limitations of the Lebanese army in protecting the region. It highlights the historical context of resistance against occupation and argues for the legitimacy of arms in such struggles, referencing international law to support these points.

Southern Lebanon is viewed through the lens of a distorted biblical narrative by the Israeli government, which labels it as northern Galilee. This perspective has fostered a movement to establish settlements in the region, containing backing from various Knesset members and investment firms. The advancement of these settlements poses significant threats, especially considering that plans for the West Bank, once seemingly impossible, have been executed despite opposition and international law violations.

The potential establishment of settlements in southern Lebanon should not be dismissed, especially given historical precedents. The absence of a strong deterrent force from the Lebanese army could lead to further incursions, reminiscent of ongoing events in Syria. Reports indicate that the Lebanese army has received directives from the United States prohibiting the storage of resistance weapons found in southern regions, highlighting external interference in Lebanon’s defense capabilities.

Current discussions have turned to the exclusivity of weapon possession, traditionally associated with nation-states. Critics argue this narrative neglects the historical prevalence of resistance to occupation, as seen globally from Algeria to Vietnam. The United Nations General Assembly and its Resolution No. 45/130 affirm the right to armed struggle against oppression, indicating it is a legitimate avenue for all peoples when confronted with foreign occupation.

The Lebanese resistance has shown efficacy in liberating southern Lebanon from occupation and maintaining deterrence for nearly fifty years. Conversely, the Lebanese army has struggled to establish itself as a competent protector against Israeli aggression, with historical instances of factions breaking away to collaborate with occupiers. Recent popular resistance in the south has demonstrated the capacity of local residents to effectively oppose Israeli violations, showcasing a potential complementarity with military efforts.

As the debate continues regarding the capabilities of the Lebanese army to safeguard southern Lebanon from prospective Zionist settlements, critics question the wisdom of disarming the resistance. Given the army’s recent inaction and inability to counter Israeli violations effectively, skepticism remains about its ability to ensure the region’s security.

In conclusion, the dynamics in Southern Lebanon demonstrate significant concerns regarding Israel’s expansionist policies and the implications for local security. The Lebanese army’s current limitations contrast with the proven effectiveness of both local and military resistance. The right to armed struggle, as recognized under international law, remains fundamental in combating occupation. The ongoing dialogue about the role and capabilities of the Lebanese army will shape the future of the region’s defense against external threats.

Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com