The New Paradoxical Equation: Israel and the Resistance Under One Roof
An-Nahar, Lebanon, August 22
These days, a peculiar and troubling equation is taking shape in Lebanon’s political discourse, one that permits a particular group—rather than others—to simultaneously adopt the mantle of “resistance” while openly leaning toward Israel. This paradox is striking not only because of its contradictions, but also because its advocates deploy the same rhetoric to brand rival political parties as traitors if they dissent from their position on the question of weapons outside the authority of the state.
Lebanese political life, at least in its modern history, has always been steeped in classifications and counter-classifications, many of which have spilled beyond Lebanon’s borders into the broader regional context. These labels have arisen for various reasons—some grounded in genuine ideological or political divisions, others the product of transient circumstances, opportunistic alignments, or external influences. They have been wielded as weapons, used by one faction to cast its opponent, whether an individual or a political party, in a particular light.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The Lebanese remember these classifications well, and some persist in the collective consciousness long after the political eras that spawned them. Think of the old dichotomies of right versus left, or progressive versus reactionary, terms that once dominated the landscape. Others endure today, deployed intermittently: nationalist versus unpatriotic, patriot versus traitor, loyalist versus agent, independent versus submissive. These accusations have resurfaced with vigor in recent years, particularly in the arsenal of Hezbollah and its media machine, as part of its assault on the national debate over the exclusivity of weapons in state hands.
The timing of this renewed offensive coincided with the government’s recent decision on the matter, which Hezbollah denounced as subservience to foreign powers—though it had itself once accepted the principle of exclusive weapons south of the Litani River. Was that concession at the time not also a form of submission, one might ask? Historically, Lebanon’s political classifications rested on a basic logic of mutual exclusivity: a party or individual could be right-wing or left-wing, but never both; reactionary or progressive, not a mixture; nationalist or unpatriotic, with no middle ground.
What has never been witnessed before in this lexicon is the coexistence of stark contradictions—simultaneous support for Israel and for the weapons of the resistance, treated by the resistance itself as though it were a perfectly normal stance. This is a precedent in the culture of resistance, one that challenges its very essence and goals, and it demands serious scrutiny. How is it that those who argue for the exclusivity of weapons under state authority are so readily vilified as traitorous agents in submission to outsiders, while those who seek cooperation with Israel, yet still endorse the resistance’s arsenal, are warmly embraced and greeted at embassies with honor and applause? What exactly is the issue here, and how long can such contradictions go unquestioned?
Zafer Nasser (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
