The issue of what sovereignty means, and how it can be enforced, should not be confined to the defensive sphere alone. Increasing resentment against Syrians in the domestic sphere, and offhand statements about the army versus the law, do not augur well.
The feeling of being hamstrung by international events both out of their control but with direct consequences, combined with domestic political stalemate and factionalism, is all too familiar.
The environment in Lebanon continues to be highly fractured, with geographical enclaves hosting increasingly entrenched conflicts which are spewing out more private groups threatening to create greater national disunity.
Today a large proportion of individuals within Lebanon feel that the instabilities playing out are neither their responsibility nor fight. In contrast to the civil war, there is no incentive to stay.
Politically, the country is a melting pot of regional and highly localised concerns, playing out along axes of political opportunism, religion and economic necessity, with various religious groups operating as local militias.
Combined with the warnings of the collapse of state institutions and proliferation of corruption as a result of the absence of the state, the vacuum of sovereign responsibilities is increasing. A crippled economy does not help as more people turn to 'hybrid' state support.
Clashes in Sidon demonstrate fragmentation within sects, as Sunni Sheikh Assir’s isolated battle against the Lebanese army has been roundly condemned by the majority of the Sunni population.
Their actions in Al-Qusayr hurl them far closer to the category of regional militant force, as the architects of a new framework of Middle Eastern skirmishes, in which Sunnis and Shiites become the crucial axis of antagonism, rather than nation states.
