Frem: Either a Monopoly of Arms by the Legitimate Authorities or the Disappearance of the Entity

The Chairman of Project Watan’s Executive Board, MP Neemat Frem, stated that “the fear for the Lebanese entity – once felt only by a few – has now become a widespread concern shared by all.”

He also voiced his own anxiety, “stemming from a growing conviction that Lebanon is no longer capable of producing decisions that ensure its continuity, nor is the state able to fulfill its obligations – especially with regard to making the decisive choice of confining arms to the Lebanese Army, particularly in light of Hezbollah’s recent escalation in rhetoric and renewed threats to retain its weapons.”

Speaking in a televised interview, Frem described the “support war” as a serious strategic error. “How can we sacrifice the lives of our people for others?” he asked, stating that “the provision added to Resolution 1701, within the framework of the ceasefire agreement, offered a way out to save the entity – by committing to the withdrawal of illegitimate arms and restricting them to the military institution. That is the only way to overcome the mistakes of the past and work toward peaceful coexistence.”

The lawmaker also noted that “Hezbollah’s weapons have failed to achieve the deterrent effect long claimed. The demand to place them under the sole authority of the Lebanese state has evolved from a purely technical or military issue into a test of the state’s authority – of its three presidencies and their ability to implement what they have pledged. Rather than becoming a stifling internal burden, there is still an opportunity to seize the current political moment by handing these weapons over to the Army and using them to reinforce the state’s position.”

Commenting on U.S. envoy Tom Barrack’s recent visit to Beirut, Frem noted: “What Barrack said was serious. He found nothing objectionable in Lebanon’s response to his proposal. On the contrary, he saw a clear commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty and a unified stance from the three presidents and what they represent, which is a positive sign. However, the timeline remains ambiguous and concerning. That is where the danger lies. We now have a commitment signed by the three presidents, but the real test is in the implementation.”

Frem went on to describe the current situation, recalling Henry Kissinger’s visit to Lebanon in 1973 and how he was unable to reach Baabda Palace due to armed protests near Beirut Airport. He landed in Riyak instead, met with President Sleiman Frangieh, and then departed for Damascus. “At that time, it seemed the international community had become convinced of the Lebanese entity’s inability to maintain internal security, and the task was outsourced to Hafez al-Assad,” he said. “Today, I fear a similar scenario is unfolding – should the state fail to meet its commitments. I fear even more that, after failing three or four such tests, the Lebanese state may ultimately prove that there is no longer a reason for its existence.”

He continued: “Time is running out, and the pace of change is accelerating – especially in recent months. We see Damascus opening up to the world, while we remain isolated on all fronts, unable to meet our obligations to the international community, and repeatedly proving that this entity does not possess the power to decide.”

Frem concluded: “The coming weeks are decisive. If Lebanon does not make the choices that allow it to assert a strong presence at the negotiating table of the new Middle East, it will become the dish devoured by Israel and Syria. And I fear, bitterly, that we may be living the final months of Lebanon as we know it – in its current form and borders. The continuity of the entity now depends on the state fulfilling its role and confining arms solely to the legitimate Lebanese authority.”