Over the weekend, the Lebanese government adopted the Lebanese Army’s plan to disarm the militias but without setting a binding timetable. This move contrasts with the government’s decision two weeks earlier, under US pressure, to disarm the militias by the end of the year. In addition, the decision included the demand for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. This decision allows both the army and Hezbollah to drag out the process of weapons confiscation over time and, moreover, constitutes a capitulation to Hezbollah’s dictates by conditioning disarmament on an Israeli withdrawal. This reflects the Lebanese government’s attempt to avoid confrontation with Hezbollah, at least at this stage.
In the weeks leading up to the decision, Hezbollah representatives at all levels repeatedly declared that they would not give up their weapons, and even Nabih Berri, the speaker of Parliament and head of the Shiite Amal movement, emphasized the importance of the resistance. Initially, Hezbollah’s belligerent declarations were accompanied by heated demonstrations by the organization’s supporters, riding motorcycles and waving Hezbollah flags throughout Lebanon. However, these protests gradually subsided, following behind-the-scenes contacts aimed at reaching a solution to the crisis. On the eve of the meeting, rumors spread that the Shiite ministers might boycott the government session to undermine its legitimacy, and indeed, they walked out the moment the Army’s Chief of Staff, Rodolphe Heikal, entered to present his plan to the government.
The decision allowed Nabih Berri to declare that this was the right decision to preserve domestic peace in Lebanon, while allowing President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to inform the Americans that the army’s position was adopted and the government is committed to Hezbollah’s disarmament. At the same time, the decision provides Hezbollah with an elegant escape from actually handing over its weapons. This represents a political achievement for all parties in Lebanon, but if Hezbollah is not disarmed, it will remain a military force threatening Israel.
Nevertheless, Hezbollah failed in canceling the decision regarding its disarmament, which effectively rendered its continued possession of weapons illegal. The organization claims that due to the absence of the Shiite ministers from the meeting, the decision made on the matter is itself illegal.
In conclusion, the solution presented by the Lebanese government allows it to walk a fine line on the fundamental issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament: welcoming the Lebanese army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah but without a timetable and with the condition of an Israeli withdrawal.
As for Israel—under the current circumstances, Israel must continue to strike Hezbollah in order to weaken and strip it of its assets, while simultaneously working to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it can confront Hezbollah and implement the decision to disarm it.
Over the weekend, the Lebanese government adopted the Lebanese Army’s plan to disarm the militias but without setting a binding timetable. This move contrasts with the government’s decision two weeks earlier, under US pressure, to disarm the militias by the end of the year. In addition, the decision included the demand for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. This decision allows both the army and Hezbollah to drag out the process of weapons confiscation over time and, moreover, constitutes a capitulation to Hezbollah’s dictates by conditioning disarmament on an Israeli withdrawal. This reflects the Lebanese government’s attempt to avoid confrontation with Hezbollah, at least at this stage.
In the weeks leading up to the decision, Hezbollah representatives at all levels repeatedly declared that they would not give up their weapons, and even Nabih Berri, the speaker of Parliament and head of the Shiite Amal movement, emphasized the importance of the resistance. Initially, Hezbollah’s belligerent declarations were accompanied by heated demonstrations by the organization’s supporters, riding motorcycles and waving Hezbollah flags throughout Lebanon. However, these protests gradually subsided, following behind-the-scenes contacts aimed at reaching a solution to the crisis. On the eve of the meeting, rumors spread that the Shiite ministers might boycott the government session to undermine its legitimacy, and indeed, they walked out the moment the Army’s Chief of Staff, Rodolphe Heikal, entered to present his plan to the government.
The decision allowed Nabih Berri to declare that this was the right decision to preserve domestic peace in Lebanon, while allowing President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to inform the Americans that the army’s position was adopted and the government is committed to Hezbollah’s disarmament. At the same time, the decision provides Hezbollah with an elegant escape from actually handing over its weapons. This represents a political achievement for all parties in Lebanon, but if Hezbollah is not disarmed, it will remain a military force threatening Israel.
Nevertheless, Hezbollah failed in canceling the decision regarding its disarmament, which effectively rendered its continued possession of weapons illegal. The organization claims that due to the absence of the Shiite ministers from the meeting, the decision made on the matter is itself illegal.
In conclusion, the solution presented by the Lebanese government allows it to walk a fine line on the fundamental issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament: welcoming the Lebanese army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah but without a timetable and with the condition of an Israeli withdrawal.
As for Israel—under the current circumstances, Israel must continue to strike Hezbollah in order to weaken and strip it of its assets, while simultaneously working to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it can confront Hezbollah and implement the decision to disarm it.