At the conclusion of the Lebanese government meeting on August 5—described as an exceptional and fateful session to address the issue of collecting illegal weapons held by Lebanese militias, primarily Hezbollah—Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam announced the decision: The Lebanese army must prepare a plan, by the end of August, to collect weapons from the militias, to be implemented by the end of 2025. The decision stems from an intense internal debate in recent months between Hezbollah’s opponents, who demand the organization be disarmed, arguing that it entangles Lebanon in wars not its own, and Hezbollah, which adamantly refuses to give up its weapons. The adoption of this landmark decision was made possible mainly due to Hezbollah’s weakened position since the war, alongside the election of new leadership in Lebanon, led by President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, who have committed themselves to strengthening Lebanon’s sovereignty. Although this leadership understands that disarming Hezbollah is a necessary step toward improving Lebanon’s situation, it is struggling to do so and was compelled to advance the issue at this time in an attempt to prevent further escalation with Israel.
On the eve of the government meeting, Hezbollah worked to prevent the adoption of this decision and is expected to continue to thwart efforts to implement it. The organization, which seeks to avoid confrontation with the Lebanese leadership, ultimately decided, after deliberation, to participate in the session and not boycott it; however, the Shiite ministers withdrew from the heated discussion before the vote. Simultaneous with the government session, a combative speech by the organization’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, was broadcast. In it, he claimed that the decision represented the Lebanese government’s surrender to an American–Saudi dictate and constituted a betrayal of the homeland. He reiterated that Hezbollah would not hand over its weapons—which serve as a deterrent against Israel—until Israel withdraws from all Lebanese territory, halts its attacks, and returns the prisoners of war in its custody. Qassem also threatened that if Israel continues to attack, missiles would fall deep inside its territory.
In an official response to the decision, Hezbollah claimed that the Lebanese government had committed a grave error. According to the statement, the decision contradicts the Lebanese constitution, weakens Lebanon in the face of Israeli–American aggression, and is part of a surrender strategy. It was also stated that by leaving the meeting, the Hezbollah and Amal ministers rejected the decision, and the organization will treat it as if it doesn’t exist.
Despite widespread and justified skepticism about the ability of the weak Lebanese government and army to achieve the goal outlined in the decision—namely, collecting weapons from all militias, especially Hezbollah, within a few months—the move nonetheless signals the Lebanese leadership’s desire to assert Lebanon’s sovereignty. It also reflects its understanding that Hezbollah’s independent status remains a central stumbling block to improving Lebanon’s condition. As is known, the disarmament of Hezbollah is a key demand in the framework of the American plan presented to the Lebanese by US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack, as a condition for expanding aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces and to the Lebanese state.
Nonetheless, Hezbollah’s determination not to disarm will make it very difficult for the Lebanese leadership to advance its decision, especially if it continues to maintain its policy of avoiding violent confrontations with the organization. Despite its current weakness, Hezbollah remains a strong organization with tens of thousands of armed operatives under its command. Pushing it into a corner to the point of relinquishing its weapons could lead to violent clashes with the Lebanese security forces and possibly even civil war, even though it seems that at this stage, Hezbollah isn’t interested in that. The United States and Israel must recognize this and support the Lebanese leadership in its efforts to face the difficult challenge ahead.
At the conclusion of the Lebanese government meeting on August 5—described as an exceptional and fateful session to address the issue of collecting illegal weapons held by Lebanese militias, primarily Hezbollah—Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam announced the decision: The Lebanese army must prepare a plan, by the end of August, to collect weapons from the militias, to be implemented by the end of 2025. The decision stems from an intense internal debate in recent months between Hezbollah’s opponents, who demand the organization be disarmed, arguing that it entangles Lebanon in wars not its own, and Hezbollah, which adamantly refuses to give up its weapons. The adoption of this landmark decision was made possible mainly due to Hezbollah’s weakened position since the war, alongside the election of new leadership in Lebanon, led by President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, who have committed themselves to strengthening Lebanon’s sovereignty. Although this leadership understands that disarming Hezbollah is a necessary step toward improving Lebanon’s situation, it is struggling to do so and was compelled to advance the issue at this time in an attempt to prevent further escalation with Israel.
On the eve of the government meeting, Hezbollah worked to prevent the adoption of this decision and is expected to continue to thwart efforts to implement it. The organization, which seeks to avoid confrontation with the Lebanese leadership, ultimately decided, after deliberation, to participate in the session and not boycott it; however, the Shiite ministers withdrew from the heated discussion before the vote. Simultaneous with the government session, a combative speech by the organization’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, was broadcast. In it, he claimed that the decision represented the Lebanese government’s surrender to an American–Saudi dictate and constituted a betrayal of the homeland. He reiterated that Hezbollah would not hand over its weapons—which serve as a deterrent against Israel—until Israel withdraws from all Lebanese territory, halts its attacks, and returns the prisoners of war in its custody. Qassem also threatened that if Israel continues to attack, missiles would fall deep inside its territory.
In an official response to the decision, Hezbollah claimed that the Lebanese government had committed a grave error. According to the statement, the decision contradicts the Lebanese constitution, weakens Lebanon in the face of Israeli–American aggression, and is part of a surrender strategy. It was also stated that by leaving the meeting, the Hezbollah and Amal ministers rejected the decision, and the organization will treat it as if it doesn’t exist.
Despite widespread and justified skepticism about the ability of the weak Lebanese government and army to achieve the goal outlined in the decision—namely, collecting weapons from all militias, especially Hezbollah, within a few months—the move nonetheless signals the Lebanese leadership’s desire to assert Lebanon’s sovereignty. It also reflects its understanding that Hezbollah’s independent status remains a central stumbling block to improving Lebanon’s condition. As is known, the disarmament of Hezbollah is a key demand in the framework of the American plan presented to the Lebanese by US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack, as a condition for expanding aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces and to the Lebanese state.
Nonetheless, Hezbollah’s determination not to disarm will make it very difficult for the Lebanese leadership to advance its decision, especially if it continues to maintain its policy of avoiding violent confrontations with the organization. Despite its current weakness, Hezbollah remains a strong organization with tens of thousands of armed operatives under its command. Pushing it into a corner to the point of relinquishing its weapons could lead to violent clashes with the Lebanese security forces and possibly even civil war, even though it seems that at this stage, Hezbollah isn’t interested in that. The United States and Israel must recognize this and support the Lebanese leadership in its efforts to face the difficult challenge ahead.