Inventory of weapons … under the pressure of Israeli threats

The Cabinet holds its session today to discuss the army’s plan related to implementing the decision to restrict weapons in the hands of the state. However, this internal entitlement is inseparable from the outside, as the intensive Israeli attacks in the south came during the past two days to remember that any discussion on the weapon of Hizbullah cannot take place in a vacuum, but rather under the pressure of direct threats from Tel Aviv.
On the other hand, Israel was moving with thoughtful steps to keep the scene in Lebanon tight towards the war option. Remarkably, not only the field escalation on the border, but also the disclosure of the establishment of a new training center in the occupied Golan under the name “Little Lebanon”, simulating southern towns and underground centers. This step coincided with the implementation of training for Israeli special units, with the exercises to expand next month to include the reserve forces. The Israeli message is clear and threatening, as it does not trust the ability of any political settlement inside Lebanon to disarm “Hizbullah”, and is preparing to impose its reality by force if necessary, in an attempt to introduce Lebanon into the legitimacy of the jungle.
From the moment the Cabinet’s decision was issued on the fifth of last August, it has become clear that the weapon file turned into a compound security complex. Therefore, the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, tried to find a moderate approach based on approving the principle of exclusivity in stages, without specifying a strict time period, allowing the expansion of the base of internal compatibility and alleviating the possibilities of confrontation. However, this formula, on its loyalty, did not prevent the Shiite duo from adhering to the refusal of any research into the plan within the government, waving withdrawal when the item was presented. If he goes towards approving a plan with a time period for implementation, he will accuse internally that he responds to external pressure. If an open formula is adopted in stages, it will appear as if he admits his inability to control the weapon. In both cases, the decision remains hostage to the regional powers. The party considers that previous experiences, from Nissan’s understanding to Resolution 1701, proved that Israel violates its obligations whenever it wants. Consequently, the delivery of weapons in light of the continued attacks is only a recipe for devoting Israeli domination. From this standpoint, the party and the Amal Movement gave President Aoun an opportunity to address what they consider to be the fifth and seventh sins of August, in preparation for a later stage to retract the two decisions issued. Not far from that, the army realizes the difficulty of the field. His plan includes an explicit reference to the logistical, financial and informational challenges, and the implementation links to stages that may span fifteen months, while leaving the final decision of the political authority. It thus conveys the debate from the military level to the political – and international levels, where the red lines in Beirut do not paint alone, knowing that the session comes before the arrival of the American delegate Morgan Ortigos and the leader of the Central Region (CENTCOM) to Beirut to hold meetings with the army commander and other security leaders and members of the five -year ceasefire monitor To be able to continue his duties. In light of this, it can be said, according to political circles, that the weapon file is no longer an issue of internal sovereignty, but a paper in a wider conflict that includes Israel, Syria, the United States, and Iran. Hence, the recent Israeli escalation is not just a transient pressure, but rather a clear message for the government that any step in this file will be under the microscope of the Israeli military force, and that the balance of field deterrence will remain a fundamental specific in the course of the Lebanese discussions. Consequently, the current session, according to the circles, is a test of the extent of the state’s resilience in front of Israeli pressures that seek to reconstruct the rules of the game on the southern border and farther from these borders.