By : Dr Wassim Jaber

The Last Two Weeks

By : Dr Wassim Jaber

Lebanon is entering an extremely delicate phase. What is being promoted as an “economic proposal” for the development of the South reveals, upon closer examination, an attempt to fundamentally alter the identity and geography of the region. Behind the polished language lies a plan built on permanent displacement of the southern population, transforming the entire border strip into an extra-sovereign economic zone, and leasing large portions of land to Gulf states under American–Israeli supervision, all in exchange for one core condition: the disarmament of the resistance. This is not a development project; it is a blueprint for redrawing southern Lebanon.

The plan rests on several components: financial compensation designed to prevent residents from returning home, turning the area from Naqoura to Shebaa into an open investment zone, and linking the coast to Mount Hermon through large-scale projects. In the background, there is escalating pressure and hints at the possible use of force to coerce Lebanon into accepting the deal, accompanied by Egyptian warnings that Lebanon may face “total paralysis” if it refuses to sign.

The coming two weeks carry exceptional weight. Washington aims to secure Lebanon’s signature before the anticipated Trump–Netanyahu meeting. The proposed scenario begins with political pressure, military escalation, and media intimidation. If Lebanon resists, the next phase involves striking critical infrastructure and carrying out targeted assassinations of resistance leaders. The final stage would be a manufactured internal collapse, designed to push the population and the state toward desperate acceptance.

In response, calls are directed toward the resistance to exercise restraint and avoid using its strongest deterrent cards at this stage, while establishing a clear equation: “Paralysis in Beirut = Paralysis in Tel Aviv.” Time is a strategic asset, and exposing the full details of the plan to the public is essential to deprive it of political cover.

At the level of the state, the President is urged to take a firm stance: reject any proposal involving permanent displacement, refuse any form of land leasing, protect the resistance’s weapons, and disclose all details to the Lebanese people. He carries a historic responsibility to confront the project using every available diplomatic tool.

Lebanon now stands at a decisive crossroads: either accept a path leading to displacement, land leasing, disarmament, and the erosion of sovereignty, or refuse the plan outright and bear the cost of confrontation—a cost far lower than that of surrender. History shows that peoples who chose to resist, from Vietnam to Gaza, ultimately overturned far greater schemes.

From an analytical perspective, this “economic proposal” appears to be a Lebanese adaptation of the Zionist model of apartheid: emptying the land, stripping away weapons, and transforming the South into an area subject to indirect Israeli oversight, with Gulf investors serving as the financial façade. The equation is unmistakable: permanent displacement, land for rent, and an economy under guardianship—meaning a Lebanon stripped of sovereignty.

Israel is attempting to impose through political pressure what it failed to achieve through war: displacement, depopulation, and creating irreversible facts on the ground. The only true counterweight capable of derailing this project is the resistance, which is precisely why the entire plan revolves around disarming it. No nation has surrendered its weapons under pressure and remained free. Arms handed to the Zionists do not return; land that is emptied is taken; and an economy controlled from outside is invariably used to serve the Zionist agenda.

What is needed today is to expose this project openly, prevent it from passing under any “economic” pretext, shield the South from a softer remake of 1982, and support the resistance as the final line of defense for the land and its people.