Held with the participation of France, the United States, and Saudi Arabia, and in meetings with the commander of the Lebanese army, the Paris conference ostensibly focused on “strengthening the army” and “implementing a ceasefire.” In reality, however, its substance revolves around disarming Hezbollah. The French Foreign Ministry’s claim about enforcing a ceasefire only gains meaning in the context of these countries’ silence in the face of ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon. This contradiction calls into question the security-oriented nature of the conference and reveals that the true objective is not supporting Lebanon but altering its deterrence equation.
In this context, the alignment of Western positions with Tom Barrack’s remarks on the “shared fate of Lebanon and Syria” makes clear that a project beyond a mere diplomatic meeting is underway—a project that, through political and economic pressure, seeks to impose a disarmament framework.
Gaza: A Living Testament to Western Inaction
Western behavior toward Gaza provides a reliable measure for evaluating its claims regarding Lebanon. Over two years of genocide, with the death toll surpassing 70,000, ongoing bombings, and the obstruction of humanitarian aid, demonstrate that Western support for security is selective and serves the interests of the Israeli regime.
While Gaza faces the urgent need for hundreds of thousands of tents and thousands of aid trucks remain stuck at crossings, the West’s focus on disarming resistance and forcibly relocating Palestinians carries a clear message: Israel’s security, even at the cost of eradicating humanity. Marginalizing Gaza under the pretext of the Ukraine war and other crises buys time to continue killing and occupation—a pattern now being extended to Lebanon.
Syria-izing Lebanon: A Recurring Scenario
Claims of strengthening the Lebanese army, in light of Syria’s experience, lack credibility. In Syria, Israel targeted most of the country’s defensive infrastructure over a year, while the U.S. and Europe not only failed to respond but also offered no plan to revive the army. The result left Israel free to expand its aggression.
The same pattern is being repeated in Lebanon: continued occupation of five strategic points, ongoing bombings, and simultaneous political pressure to disarm Hezbollah. The West openly presents Lebanon’s disarmament as a condition for Israel’s security, while the resistance’s weapons, alongside the army and the people, constitute the core of Lebanon’s defense strategy and a legitimate means of self-defense. Removing this component would render Lebanon vulnerable and dependent.
Recycled Promises and Social Resistance
The Paris conference and the promised February 2026 meeting are part of a chain of unfulfilled Western commitments. For years, France and other countries have spoken of billions in aid and strengthening the Lebanese army, yet none of it has materialized. These promises, rather than offering solutions, have served as tools for interfering in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
In response to this pressure, Lebanese society has made its stance clear. The widespread presence of people at resistance leaders’ funerals and the positions of political currents indicate that the majority see the continuation of resistance as the only path to salvation. Sheikh Naim Qassem’s explicit insistence on not surrendering Hezbollah’s weapons, supported by Nabih Berri, forms a strong barrier against disarmament schemes. This social reality constitutes an equation that international conferences cannot ignore.
NOURNEWS