On the myth of an Israeli Lebanon

Hezbollah deceitfully sensationalizes the ambitions of its opponents, claiming that they are striving for an “Israeli Lebanon.” This term is often invoked to frighten the people of Lebanon and force them into a lethal binary choice between Israel and the resistance state. Sheikh Naim Qassem, the man who now speaks for Hezbollah, used it in his latest speech, warning us that the emergence of an Israeli Lebanon is the aim of this war. The head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Raad, once explained this notion: It is a Lebanon of nightclubs, dancing, banks and financial and commercial services. Hezbollah portrays this Israeli Lebanon as a politically and economically subjugated state that has no values or morals; it allows our authentic culture to wane in favor of an imperialistic culture that has no roots or ties to “our causes.”

However, Lebanon is undergoing a catastrophic economic collapse, its infrastructure is falling apart and the state’s foundations, institutions and constitution are being eroded under the weight of the “resistance Lebanon,” leading us to ask: What if this alleged Israeli Lebanon is actually a better alternative?

Let us delve deeper into this Lebanon as Hezbollah characterizes it, rather than giving in to fear of what it represents and stands for.

The path Hezbollah is taking — that of eternal resistance, militarization and isolation — is destroying Lebanon

Nadim Koteich

Hezbollah’s first objection to this Lebanon is that it would, in the medium or long term, become part of the architecture of regional peace. Should seeking a Lebanon that chooses peace instead of perpetual conflict be taboo? Is it an accusation one should repudiate? Would this outcome not enable the country to channel its resources toward building a robust economy, developing effective institutions and reinforcing its vibrant civil society, as well as allowing the Lebanese to turn their country into a regional hub for trade, innovation and investment?

Is joining the axis of peace with Israel and all neighboring countries not an opportunity for Lebanon to be on the side of regional stability instead of a battleground where foreign forces wage their conflicts?

Let us be honest. The Lebanese experienced what Hezbollah calls Israeli Lebanon during the Rafik Hariri era. The project he pursued as prime minister provided the country with an opportunity to rebuild and develop its state and this era witnessed an economic and cultural renaissance.

Was this project not portrayed as a covert Israeli project? Was Hariri not assassinated after a massive wave of accusations of treason?

Even intra-Lebanese reconciliation and the promotion of pluralism seem more conceivable in Israeli Lebanon than in resistance Lebanon.

Hezbollah also warns us that the “resistance” would be disarmed in Israeli Lebanon. However, is doing away with militias in favor of a strong, unified national army that operates under the authority of the state — a genuine safeguard of its sovereignty — not a basic function of any state? By the way, nothing would prevent Lebanon from maintaining its commitment to Palestine. However, it would support Palestine through diplomatic and humanitarian channels, working alongside legitimate Arab, international and Palestinian actors without sacrificing Lebanon’s future, as is happening now.

This Lebanon would not simply sacrifice its identity or interests to ally with Israel. No Lebanese political faction favors this, neither secretly nor openly. Raising this prospect is meant to prevent us from recognizing that the path Hezbollah is taking — that of eternal resistance, militarization and isolation — has destroyed and is destroying Lebanon, as we can all clearly see.

Indeed, Hezbollah’s vision for Lebanon as a center for resistance has depleted the country’s resources, stifled its potential and undermined its social fabric for decades. Hezbollah’s insistence on assuming the role of Lebanon’s protector and defender through armed resistance has given rise to a failed state that continues to prioritize armed struggle over good governance, development and social progress.

Maintaining the resistance model, with all the horrific outcomes it has engendered, is the real danger

Nadim Koteich

Resistance Lebanon has overseen the collapse of the economy and it has essentially killed any chance for recovery through its imposition of near-total isolation from the region. As a result, regional states have stopped investing and providing services in Lebanon and their people have stopped flocking to the country as tourists.

Even Lebanon’s sovereignty, which Hezbollah pretends is justification for its armed resistance, has been crushed by the militia’s dominance over the state and its imposition of decisions on war and peace, leaving both the state and the country in tatters.

Equally concerning is that resistance Lebanon has stifled Lebanon’s unique pluralism and openness. Anything that is not linked to resistance is seen as paving the way for an Israeli era. This applies to culture, education, development and the economy, which have all been weakened to allow for the narrative of resistance’s hegemony.

The myth of Israeli Lebanon is a means by which Hezbollah instills fear, stifles debate and corners the Lebanese by presenting resistance as their only option. However, the truth is that this so-called Israeli Lebanon is not the real threat to Lebanon’s future. Maintaining the resistance model, with all the horrific outcomes it has engendered, is the real danger.

The Israeli Lebanon Hezbollah warns of is a normal Lebanon, which is exactly what the Lebanese need. Hezbollah is free to choose how to frame this Lebanon, but it is a country that chooses life, growth and opportunities instead of eternal resistance.

• Nadim Koteich is the General Manager of Sky News Arabia. X: @NadimKoteich