On November 11, 1982, the heroic martyr Ahmad Qasir the pioneer of the era of istishhadiyin (self-sacrificing fighters) drove a vehicle laden with explosives into the headquarters of the Israeli military governor in Tyre. Through this act, he signaled the inevitable fate of the Zionist occupation of Lebanon, foretelling its certain end, regardless of how much time might pass.
As the performance of the resistance fighters evolved, their heroic operations continued, and a renewed national spirit took hold across various segments of Lebanese society, Ahmad Qasir became a symbol and an exemplar for the honorable resistance fighters those who, with their own blood, secured the liberation of Lebanon, its sovereignty, and the freedom and dignity of its people.
His vehicle, packed with explosives, moved toward its designated target: the aggressive Zionist occupier. At that time, there were no security checkpoints to impede the movement of those passing through whether they were resistance fighters, collaborators, or ordinary civilians.
The thunderous impact of his martyrdom declared, in fire and flame, that there was no place for the occupation in Lebanon, and that its leaders and forces would have to withdraw unconditionally and without exception. This came to pass on May 25, 2000, realized through the sacrifices of the martyrs, the heroism of the resistance fighters, the wounds of the injured, the suffering of those held in captivity, and the endurance of their community a society comprising the most honorable, the purest, and the noblest of people. Regrettably, some Lebanese individuals remain trapped within the cocoon of their own racist and sectarian mindset. They harbor delusions of monopolizing power in their country even by pinning their hopes on support from the Zionist occupiers and their tyrannical American backers while displaying a suspicious disregard for their fellow Lebanese, with whom a partnership is essential to safeguard Lebanon’s unity, sovereignty, and stability.
Forty-three years after the martyrdom of Ahmad Qasir, the Zionist enemy in the wake of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation and its repercussions has sought to repeat its occupation of Lebanon. Taking advantage of a confluence of favorable local, regional, and international conditions, the enemy has brought its full security and military weight to bear, attempting to achieve the objectives it failed to realize during its 1982 invasion and its subsequent war of aggression in 2006.
Those who remain committed to the path of the martyred resistance fighter Ahmad Qasir have not wavered or altered their chosen course. They have persisted in exercising their right to prepare and to accumulate the capabilities and expertise necessary to defend their homeland and confront aggression, thereby preserving the nation’s sovereignty and protecting the security and dignity of the Lebanese people.
The vehicle intercepted by a Lebanese authority checkpoint at Dahr el-Baidar about a month ago was carrying a load of explosives—the type typically used in the context of resistance operations, the defense of the homeland, and its protection against the Zionist occupation and its hostile, humiliating agenda toward the Lebanese people. However, those who failed to learn the lesson from the 1982 invasion—and whose sectarian or factional impulses have once again clouded their judgment—have recklessly and suspiciously sought to exploit the current situation. They have gone to great lengths to attack, demonize, and undermine the resistance, effectively serving the objectives of the occupier and its international and regional backers. Their goal is to help secure a place for Lebanon on a path of subservience—aligning the country with hostile agendas and interests that run directly counter to the well-being of Lebanon and its people.
Between the vehicle used by Ahmad Qasir and the one involved in the Dahr al-Baydar incident lies a long, complex history of events and developments in Lebanon—a history that remains a subject of intense contention between two primary, opposing camps. Each camp possesses its own distinct vision, methodology, and assessment of Lebanon’s strategic interests; each maintains its own set of alliances and presence—both domestically (at the popular and official levels) and across the regional and international arenas.
The first camp can be defined as the “sovereigntist-resistance” axis, while the other can be characterized as the “opportunistic-conciliatory” axis.
Because this division is a broad, conceptual classification rather than a rigid, binary one, many Lebanese figures and entities—with diverse interests and roles—choose to remain outside of either camp. Nevertheless, some of these individuals and groups may, in whole or in part, find their positions and objectives aligned with one side or the other on various issues. The sovereign, resistance-oriented axis—a path inaugurated by the martyr Ahmad Qasir in 1982—is rooted in a strategic vision. This vision posits that truly free nations are those whose peoples uphold steadfast national commitments—commitments from which all state authorities derive their legitimacy and mandate. Foremost among these commitments are:
First: National sovereignty, which fortifies both the people and the nation against any aggression targeting the integrity of the land and its population, and against any external interference that seeks to impose foreign policies upon the citizenry.
Second: Resistance, embraced by the citizens as both a guiding principle and a strategic choice. This ensures ongoing preparation and readiness to confront any aggression directed at the nation—its territory, its people, and its interests.
Conversely, there exists an opportunistic, compromising faction—present among certain segments of the Lebanese population, as well as within the state apparatus, its administrative bodies, and its institutions. This naturally gives rise to friction and mutual opposition between this faction and the resistance-oriented axis—tensions that periodically surface within the country’s domestic political life.
It is a fundamental premise that a legitimate national authority in Lebanon is one that emerges in accordance with the Constitution and existing laws—free from any form of foreign or external interference—and one that commands the confidence of the majority of the Lebanese people.
The country generally enjoys internal stability when the government adheres—without subterfuge or evasion—to its ratified ministerial program, and when it refuses to yield to external powers or dictates that run counter to the terms of the national consensus, the Constitution, and the prevailing laws of the land. Since the inception of Lebanon, the country has never been free from the influence and interference of various external powers acting as custodians. This has served as a primary driver of internal divisions and tensions throughout most of its history.
The events experienced and endured by the Lebanese people—from the Zionist invasion in 1982 up to the Taif Agreement in 1989—serve as a historical record of the internal conflict among the Lebanese regarding their stance toward the Zionist occupation. An opportunistic, compromising faction sought to exploit this occupation to gain power and influence, attempting to impose its authority on the country by leveraging support from various foreign states—and, at times, even from the Zionist enemy itself. In contrast, the sovereignist, resistance-oriented faction insisted on liberating all Lebanese territory held by the enemy and upholding the right of the Lebanese people to full independence in managing their own affairs, free from the dictates or tutelage of any outside party.
While the Taif Agreement was reached at a juncture where international, regional, and local interests converged—and while the Lebanese, despite their diverse orientations and affiliations, have relied upon its provisions for years—the current renewed Zionist occupation of Lebanon has triggered a deterioration across all levels, driven by the clashing of these same international, regional, and local interests. We are witnessing a troubling disregard for, and an evasion of, both the Taif Agreement and the Constitution. The authorities appear increasingly inclined to heed the dictates of international and regional overseers, waiting for the dust to settle from the ongoing conflict—a struggle between the Zionists (along with their backers and those willing to strike deals with them) on one side, and the sovereign-minded resistance forces and their allies in Lebanon and the broader region on the other.
On November 11 Hezbollah’s “Martyr’s Day,” honoring those who have most sincerely championed the cause of truth—one must ask: Is a national consensus possible that could restore things to their proper order?
A logical starting point would be for all parties to acknowledge, first, that coexistence with the Zionist occupation—and its expansionist threats—is impossible. Furthermore, it must be accepted that the Lebanese people’s right to resist is non-negotiable. The question of the exclusive possession of arms is a matter of national sovereignty; it should be addressed internally only after the occupation has ended, within the framework of a national defense and security strategy for Lebanon. This must be accompanied by a renewed commitment to the Taif Agreement—ensuring its provisions are applied consistently, rather than selectively, and rejecting any attempts to manipulate or cunningly reinterpret its text to suit the whims of a particular faction or its foreign patron. The sovereignist, resistance-oriented camp—and those committed to its foundational principles—argue that, given the authorities’ drift toward appeasing the Zionist occupation entity—exemplified by the humiliating “framework agreement” intended to reconcile with the entity and curb its aggression—and in light of the proven futility of pinning any hopes on the provisions of that agreement, it is incumbent upon these authorities to retract their concessions, correct their course, and draw strength from a unified national stance to ward off the dangers of aggression against Lebanon.
In short, a strict commitment by the Lebanese people to the concept of national sovereignty—applied consistently and without selective interpretation—would inevitably lead the country out of the downward spiral of internal erosion, external plunder, and the profiteering of those who broker suspicious deals.
Head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, MP Mohammad Raad
Source: Al-Akhbar newspaper (translated and edited y Al-Manar)