“Stopping the war before completely crushing the filthy sectarian militias is putting us in danger and digging the grave of the Lebanese people,” a Lebanese film critic poignantly said to Israel, referring to his fear that Israel might stop its devastating war on Lebanon before eliminating Hezbollah. This concern, despite the heavy civilian casualties and destruction of villages and cities, reflects a widespread sentiment among some Lebanese on social media. Many fear Israel might disappoint them by halting the war without finishing Hezbollah off, as though Israel waged the war in service of their interests.
MP Nadim Gemayel also expressed his fear that Israel would conclude its battle with Hezbollah along the border without finishing it off completely, stating, “I fear that Israel will end its conflict with Hezbollah on the border and leave it for us to solve our problems with it.” He said this while the people in the devastated areas were eagerly awaiting a ceasefire agreement to save lives and the remnants of their properties.
Similarly, in off-the-record discussions among political actors, it was said that the Israeli war was seen as a solution to eliminate Hezbollah, which had firmly established control over Lebanon’s political life through the use of force, making it impossible to counter with politics. When the suffering of civilians was raised, especially with the expanding scope of Israeli strikes that targeted entire residential neighborhoods and claimed hundreds of civilian lives, the response was that there are costs that must be paid. In other words, the lives and properties of innocent people could be considered an acceptable price to pay in order to eliminate Hezbollah, a group that also regards lives as expendable.
The Bet on Lebanese Deaths
All of this unfolded while many Lebanese mourned their loved ones and homes, while others lived in moments of terror and fear for their children, families, and neighborhoods. Some began to casually discuss, both in private and public, that death, even if it affected the innocent and children, and the destruction of entire neighborhoods, were costs that had to be accepted to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. On the opposite side, those who had traditionally supported Hezbollah’s narrative were telling people that they had to sacrifice and pay the price of the “inevitable victory” without protest. They argued that it was forbidden to express normal human feelings like fear, anxiety, or loss, under the pretext that such emotions weaken resolve.
The tragedy of these positions towards Lebanese citizens is not only that they disregard international laws and humanitarian principles that should be observed even towards enemies, but they also extend to other dangerous consequences. The most alarming aspect of this rhetoric, which lacks sensitivity towards a large segment of the Lebanese population and easily accepts their deaths as an acceptable price for eliminating Hezbollah, is that it normalizes the concept of collective punishment and tolerates war crimes committed by an enemy state against Lebanon. It also creates a mindset that legitimizes the violations perpetrated by Israel and allows them to define the targets and costs.
Those who argue that anyone living in areas under Hezbollah’s control should bear responsibility for this dominance and pay the price to remove the party’s control over Lebanese decision-making, do not understand the reality of those areas or how Hezbollah expanded its influence within them. The argument that anyone who has not openly opposed Hezbollah should bear responsibility for its political and military choices opens the door to discussing the logic of responsibility more broadly, extending it to political decision-makers rather than to citizens who are subject to those decisions.
Hezbollah did not suddenly gain control over the Shiite community’s decisions and, by extension, over the country’s decisions. It did not present the Shiites with a political project that they read, liked, and then decided to entrust him with their fate. Hezbollah built its power incrementally over decades, during which it cooperated with various political factions, many of which colluded with it, providing it with services and legitimacy in exchange for gains and settlements.
Explaining this issue requires revisiting many crucial events over the past four decades, which this article cannot fully cover. Therefore, the logic of justifying killing in the name of holding people accountable for their choices paves the way for the killing of innocents and the destruction of buildings in various regions under the pretext that their leaders or some of their figures are responsible for Hezbollah’s decisions or have interests tied to it.
The “Suspicion” of Those Who Oppose Hezbollah
Perhaps the most affected by Hezbollah’s violence were the people of the south, southern Beirut suburbs, and the Bekaa Valley. These people courageously confronted Hezbollah when others were making deals with it. Today, these individuals are asked to accept this logic of paying the price, completely separating themselves from their people and communities, or else they will be labeled as “suspect” for not abandoning their initial loyalties. This is a logic that trivializes people’s lives and does not anger the armed organization, but rather feeds into its rhetoric and strengthens its stance, making its Shiite opponents caught between two narratives that disregard the lives of civilians.
This inhuman rhetoric reflects a deep political failure on the part of those who promote it. It is a logic that Hezbollah sometimes seeks to exploit for its own benefit. While Israeli strikes have weakened Hezbollah and imposed a new reality on the ground, this reality requires a careful, objective reading and wise management to help the country face challenges, rather than exacerbating them.
Anyone seeking to confront Hezbollah’s project must first distinguish between the party as an armed ideological organization and its supporters, as well as the people living in areas under its control. They must understand how this ideological organization has infiltrated every detail of people’s lives and addressed their fears. They must understand how Hezbollah exploited the state’s absence and deepened its marginalization. Furthermore, they must recognize how Hezbollah used the economic crisis to expand its organizational influence and others like it. It is also essential to understand how Hezbollah exploited the rhetoric of its opponents, who previously accepted its control over the Shiite community and the sectarian and regional logic.
It is still uncertain whether the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, which is currently in a testing phase, will put an end to the catastrophic war. However, what is certain is that this phase requires Hezbollah to take responsibility for its military and political choices, and for everyone in Lebanon to bear their political and moral responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to reconsider the logic that hastens misguided bets and trivializes human lives, seeing them as mere fuel for political ambitions.
