Lebanese Disarmament: A Convenient Narrative for Western Interests
ABC News reports on the Lebanese military's 'new phase' of disarming groups like Hezbollah, framing it as an internal Lebanese initiative towards stability. What the report conveniently sidesteps is the extensive history of Western, and particularly US and Israeli, intervention in Lebanon, which has directly fueled the rise and continued relevance of these very groups. From Israel's 22-year
occupation of Southern Lebanon (1978-2000), which Hezbollah rose to resist, to various US-backed proxy conflicts and arms flows in the region, the roots of these 'non-state' arsenals are far from indigenous. One might ask if the Lebanese military would even need to disarm groups if external powers weren't constantly creating conditions where such groups thrived as perceived protectors against
foreign aggression. This narrative carefully omits that Hezbollah's military wing gained significant popular legitimacy by being the only force to expel Israeli occupation from Lebanese territory. When Western media, often echoing Washington's talking points, calls for disarmament, one must ask: disarmament against whom? And for whose benefit? The emphasis on 'non-state groups' neatly sidesteps
the far larger, state-sponsored militarization of the region—often funded by US taxpayers—that forces these groups into existence. It's almost as if the problem isn't the symptoms, but the systemic infection.