Israel’s logic is also the logic of the Lebanese political system: does Zionism take precedence over Lebanese nationality?

If Lebanese Jews are Israeli, then Lebanese Shiites are Iranian, Lebanese Maronites are French, Lebanese Sunnis are Saudi, Lebanese Greek Orthodox are Russian, and Israel seeks to appropriate the Lebanese Druze, and so on…–while Americans are by no means limited to Lebanese Evangelicals.

 

Yesterday, reports circulated—based on official statements from Netanyahu’s office that the Lebanese government did not deny—regarding a prisoner exchange deal. This deal involves the release of Lebanese “civilians” held by the Zionist enemy in exchange for the remains of “leaders of the Jewish community in Lebanon” who were killed during the Lebanese Civil War.

In doing so, the Lebanese government is committing several characterized political crimes

First, it sends the remains of Lebanese citizens—regardless of their sect—to an enemy entity that occupies parts of Lebanon and kills and destroys Lebanese people and their villages, likewise regardless of their sect.

Second, it treats its own citizens as expatriate communities belonging to foreign nations whose governments have the “right” to claim their remains—even when that government is the Zionist enemy. In doing so, it reinforces Israel’s view of the region’s peoples as mere members of sects rather than citizens of their own states. This approach drives these “sects” to pin their hopes on external actors, ultimately leading to their subjugation to them. This complicity with Israel’s perspective on our societies fosters social fragmentation and destruction for the benefit of the Zionist project; no rational person—assuming good intentions—could fail to grasp the magnitude of this crime.

Thirdly, it constitutes an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Zionist guardianship over all the world’s Jews, and reinforces the integration between Zionism and racist currents worldwide—a dynamic that has existed since Zionism’s inception. This is fundamentally rejected by many Jews across the globe, as well as by any free, non-racist conscience. Such an acknowledgment cannot be made in the name of the Lebanese people, even if issued by those governing them during a time of heedlessness.

There are many other crimes involved—not least of which is the issue of the fate of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel (both civilian and non-civilian)—alongside the contribution to fragmenting a society that is already fractured.

Hostility toward the Zionist project is essential for the defense of society

Zionism is a racist, colonialist movement, and Israel is its lethal embodiment in our region; opposing the Zionist project is a duty—first and foremost in defense of our society. Any engagement with it that falls outside the framework of managing the conflict to serve the rights and dignity of our people and the peoples of the region constitutes a clear-cut political crime that must be confronted. Succumbing to the Zionist project is not a fate we must accept. Defeats have tangible causes, the root of which lies in our failure to mobilize our society’s resources—a failure stemming from our acceptance of the Zionist project’s own approach to dealing with our society. Persisting in treating our society as a collection of sects—mirroring the enemy’s approach—only entrenches defeatism and powerlessness.

Through this action, the official authority justifies Hezbollah’s entry into the war—aligning itself with what the sect’s leadership (an authority the state itself acknowledges) deems necessary. For its part, Hezbollah—through its current silence and acquiescence to this state of subservience—justifies the official authority’s conduct and its capitulation to the enemy. It is a symbiotic dynamic that comes at the expense of a society whose members lack housing, education, and employment, and whose greatest hope is merely to organize their children’s emigration.

Can we forget how wartime militias committed crimes of kidnapping and sectarian-based killings, invited interventions from regional and global powers—including Israel—and ultimately, upon seizing power, granted themselves amnesty? Given the gravity of the current situation, perhaps those who killed these citizens might dare to confess their deeds, thereby exposing the inadequacy of the sectarian legitimacies prevailing in this country.

The legitimacy of an authority cannot stem from external diktat—such as “mission-based” governments designated by foreign powers—and anyone who participated in producing the latest iteration of this authority bears direct responsibility for its actions. Defeat is the product of sectarian legitimacy and the truce of war; the capacity to confront challenges, however, stems from a legitimacy capable of mobilizing resources—the legitimacy of civil states that serve as a model for the region and the world.