Baraa Al-Ahmar writes: Lebanon and the negotiations are hostage to terrorism and explosives.. Who protects the Lebanese?

This article is written by Baraa Al-Ahmar, a Lebanese journalist and political writer, and the opinions expressed below express her opinion and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Ofoq News network. There is no point in negotiating to restore Lebanon's sovereignty over its entire territory while the Lebanese remain hostage to weapons outside the state, which are capable of threatening their security and undermining their national options whenever they come close to the test of negotiating to regain the land and end the war.

The dilemma is not in Lebanon’s ability to sit at the negotiating table with Israel, but rather in its ability to protect this path from forces that refuse to submit their weapons to the authority of the state, and link the decision of war and peace to calculations that contradict the interests of the Lebanese. The seizure of large shipments of explosives heading towards the southern suburbs of Beirut brings the cycle of assassinations back to the forefront of the security scene and renews fears of intimidation.

In light of the controversy over the framework agreement, the restriction of weapons to the state, and the future of Hezbollah’s weapons, this incident cannot be treated as a security detail that can be contained with a statement. It cannot be certain that there is a sabotage plan related to the negotiations, but the timing of the incident requires a transparent investigation that reveals the source and destination of the shipment, the parties behind it, and the purpose of its transportation.

This comes as Lebanon discusses a negotiating framework that is supposed to open the way for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in the south and put an end to the war. On the other hand, Hezbollah clings to its weapons outside legitimate institutions, while Lebanon remains vulnerable to the repercussions of the American-Iranian war without the state being able to impose its authority and protect the right of the Lebanese to choose peace without blackmail or threats.

It is not permissible for the lives of the Lebanese to remain a hostage to the possibilities, and for peace to be discussed under the weight of what I consider to be political terrorism practiced by the party, whose weapons have become a tool to disrupt any national choice that is not consistent with Iran’s calculations, and a means to subjugate political action through intimidation of assassinations and civil war. Who protects the Lebanese, and who prevents political intimidation?

The Lebanese do not need to wait for a new wave of assassinations to demand that their state protect them. The history of assassinations in Lebanon makes their fears legitimate, and does not exempt the investigation from proving responsibilities.

This is not an unjust or slanderous accusation, as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has convicted members of Hezbollah in the case of the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah's hiding behind the slogan of "resistance" and claiming to confront Israel do not justify its holding of weapons outside the authority of the state, nor do they give it an open mandate to drag Lebanon into wars linked to Tehran's calculations and interests.

While the Lebanese suffer from displacement and economic and social collapse. What is required is to prevent security incidents from turning into a tool for intimidation and disrupting national options.

The security services must reveal the truth about the explosive shipment, and the government must ensure the independence of the investigation, announce its results to public opinion, and arrest those involved and hold them accountable. Provided that the demand for evidence does not turn into an excuse for inaction, so that the security of the Lebanese people becomes a pressure card on the political forces supporting negotiations.

Because the framework agreement is not only a diplomatic path, but rather a test of Lebanon's ability to restore its national decision. Peace is not surrender, negotiation is not betrayal, and restricting weapons to the state is not an invitation to civil war, but rather a condition to prevent its recurrence.

The continuation of weapons outside its authority makes the decision to go to war possible in accordance with the interests of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and without any national consensus. It also weakens the Lebanese negotiator and exposes the country to further destruction and isolation. The Lebanese have paid heavy prices for the assassinations and wars that have undermined the state.

Every delay in imposing the rule of law gives illegal weapons an additional ability to disrupt the choices of the state and the Lebanese people. The government must prove that the state is the one that protects and builds and not allow fear to decide whether Lebanon wants war or peace.