Omar al-Rassi, “Akhbar al-Yawm” agency

The Right to Self-Defense: Can Ministerial Statements Shield Lebanon from Wars?

Source: The state must reclaim authority without standing against its people

There will be no controversy in the ministerial statement regarding the economic issues at hand, as there is consensus on addressing the economic crisis, reviving the country, and moving toward reforms. However, the issue that will form a subject of debate will revolve around the item of resistance and defending the country.

This clause comes in the aftermath of a devastating war and amid an enemy lurking at the borders. Yet, the phrase "Army-People-Resistance" is no longer acceptable.

The question arises: can a country be protected with phrases? Knowing that the ministerial statement of former Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government did not include this tripartite formula. However, under that government’s tenure, a devastating war took place, and it remained entirely passive, merely counting the number of martyrs and casualties, lamenting the destruction, and seeking foreign assistance.

A well-informed source told “Akhbar Al-Yawm” that when ministerial statements referred to the tripartite formula of "People, Army, and Resistance", they were addressing the actual practice of resistance—how it interacts with the state and, conversely, how the state engages with the concept of resistance.

The source further explained that when a ministerial statement cites Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which grants nations the right to self-defense, whether individually or collectively, in response to aggression, it is referencing an internationally recognized and widely adopted principle. Moreover, the Lebanese Constitution’s preamble explicitly aligns itself with the UN Charter, making it a fundamental reference point in shaping Lebanon’s democratic system and political framework.

In light of these considerations, the source emphasized the need to develop new formulations that reflect an evolution in practice, not with the aim of delegitimizing or dismantling the resistance, but rather to acknowledge the new realities that have emerged. These include the loss of land, infrastructure, and human lives, as well as the devastation of entire villages, resulting from decisions taken independently of the Lebanese state.

Thus, at some point, especially with the election of President Joseph Aoun and the appointment of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, the Lebanese state must draw conclusions about the strategic mistakes committed by the resistance. At the same time, the state must seize the opportunity to fill the voids, reassert its authority, and reclaim control over national decision-making.

Acknowledging the existing power struggle between the state and Hezbollah, the source stressed that this does not mean the state should be against its people. Instead, it must prevent reckless actions that could lead to internal fragmentation, division, or even war. Externally, it must safeguard the country’s fundamental assets -its land and borders- from being jeopardized.

As for how this balance can be achieved, the source stated that politics is the art of the possible, and both sides must act accordingly. The state must fully assert its role, while Hezbollah must recognize that its own interests lie in rallying around the Lebanese state. Only through such an approach can Lebanon embark on the reconstruction of the devastated areas—areas that are home to Hezbollah, Amal, and the Shiite community, though the suffering has affected all Lebanese.

The source concluded by emphasizing that the ultimate objective must be the restoration of the state’s dignity. Wars end with one side claiming victory, and victories lead to new alliances and shifting dynamics. However, Lebanon’s priority should not be about winning against itself, but rather about unifying and strengthening its state institutions.