BEIRUT — The central challenge facing Lebanon today is often misrepresented as a confrontation between the “state” and the “Resistance.” In reality, it is a struggle between a state that has yet to be fully realized and a defensive necessity imposed by persistent danger.

Reducing the crisis to a weapons debate before resolving the deeper failure of statehood neither produces sovereignty nor strengthens national unity—it merely postpones the birth of a viable state.

Recent political and military developments illustrate this contradiction clearly.

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal received U.S. Central Command’s Joint Special Operations Task Force commander, Mason R. Dula, alongside a delegation, to discuss military cooperation and regional developments. 

Haykal also met UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert to discuss domestic conditions and preparations for the Paris conference intended to support the Lebanese army. 

Her meetings extended to President Joseph Aoun and Defense Minister Michel Menassa, with a focus on the army’s second phase plan to centralize weapons under state authority.

Yet informed sources stress that the March 5 Paris conference remains provisional, pending the outcome of Haykal’s upcoming visit to Washington. 

U.S. officials reportedly view the visit as a “test,” particularly regarding the issue of disarming Hezbollah and the army’s readiness to begin implementation north of the Litani River. 

Should Washington be dissatisfied, postponing—or canceling—the conference remains a strong possibility. 

This conditional support underscores how external pressures increasingly shape Lebanon’s internal security agenda.

Further signaling a shift, Lebanon was formally informed that Ambassador Michel Issa will represent the United States in future meetings of the so-called “mechanism committee,” effectively ending the role of Morgan Ortagus. 

At the same time, U.S. pressure reportedly led Qatar to remove reconstruction aid for southern villages from its assistance package, pending further consultations.

Washington continues to block Lebanon from launching an official reconstruction appeal or creating a donor fund, explicitly linking reconstruction to the Israeli demand for comprehensive disarmament across Lebanese territory.

Regionally, Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan avoided taking a direct stance on upcoming parliamentary elections but was firm in rejecting any political or electoral cooperation with the Islamic Group (Al-Jama’ al-Islamiya), describing it as a “designated terrorist organization.” 

Despite this, the group intends to contest elections nationwide, keeping channels open with various political forces.

Beneath these developments lies a deeper philosophical and political question: what defines a state? A state is not merely a flag, an anthem, or nominal institutions. At its core, it is a moral and political contract: the monopoly of force in exchange for protection, and obedience in return for dignity and sovereignty. 

This contract collapses when the state fails to perform its most basic functions—protecting citizens, defending territory, and deterring aggression.

When citizens are killed, land is violated, and sovereignty is repeatedly breached without an effective response, the state may survive legally, but it loses its ethical legitimacy.

Legitimacy is not derived from constitutional texts alone, but from the capacity to act and assume responsibility. A state unable to protect its people cannot credibly demand exclusive control over force.

In such contexts, resistance does not emerge as rebellion against the state, but as a defensive response to its absence or incapacity. History—from occupied France to Algeria, and Lebanon itself—shows that resistance movements often safeguarded the very idea of the nation when the state could not. 

Disarmament, therefore, is not an absolute right of authority; it is conditional upon the state’s proven ability to protect all citizens, deter external threats, and provide a trusted security alternative.

The real, often ignored question is not why the Resistance is armed, but why people were left unprotected in the first place. 

Lebanon’s crisis does not begin with weapons, but with the vacuum that necessitated them. Until a just, strong, and sovereign Lebanese state truly exists, leaping over realities will not build sovereignty—it will only delay its arrival.