Illustration by Jaimee Lee Haddad
For years, some Lebanese politicians have called for the state to hold the exclusive right to bear military arms in line with U.N. Security Council Resolutions. It’s been a hot topic for some time — but in recent days, the temperature has been rising.
On Saturday, Hezbollah’s leader Naim Qassem made headlines with a firm statement:
“We will not allow anyone to disarm the resistance … We will cut off the hand of those who try.”
His speech came just days after President Joseph Aoun once again pledged to restore the state’s monopoly on weapons, a central promise of his presidency.
That’s when things took a turn. The speech was followed by a wave of political reactions — and a deadly escalation on the ground. Israeli airstrikes in the South killed two senior Hezbollah figures, marking some of the most intense attacks since February.
So what’s really at stake here? And where do things stand now?
1. What was set out in the cease-fire agreement, U.N. Resolution 1701 and 1559, and the Taif accord?
The November 2024 cease-fire, brokered by the U.S. and France, and agreed upon by Hezbollah, aimed to put a stop to the cycle of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. Its main points:
- The Israeli army should totally leave southern Lebanon within 60 days.
- The Lebanese Army should move in and take on all security responsibilities in the South.
- Hezbollah should dismantle its military infrastructure.
- The Lebanese Security Forces and Lebanese Army & UNIFIL will be the only entities authorized to carry weapons or deploy troops in southern Lebanon.
- A five-country team (including the U.S. and France) would ensure everyone played by the rules.
These terms echo U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 (from 2006), which basically says that no one can have weapons except the Lebanese state.
Also, Resolution 1701 references “the full implementation of relevant provisions of the Taif Accord (1989) and Resolution 1559 (2004) … that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.”
Yet here we are, nearly two decades later, and Hezbollah is the most powerful armed group in the country, doing its own thing outside the framework of the Lebanese state.
2. What are President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam’s takes?
President Joseph Aoun keeps saying that disarmament is a national priority, but he also admits it’s a “sensitive” issue. On Easter Sunday, he told everyone that while the decision has been made, he wants to wait “until circumstances allow.”
Prime Minister Salam is on the same page. He’s been clear that only the state should decide when and how Lebanon goes to war. Both of them want progress, but through dialogue, not escalation.
3. Why hasn’t this been sorted out before, and what have we accomplished?
- The timing of this debate is no coincidence. Hezbollah is under pressure after months of clashes with Israel and the shift in power dynamics following the weakening of the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” in the region. Qassem said Hezbollah is open to discussing a national defense strategy if Israel fully pulls out of the South. But disarmament is still a no-go for them now.
- Other Hezbollah officials believe that the state needs to handle other priorities before discussing a national strategy to protect Lebanon’s sovereignty.
- On the Lebanese political scene, parties like the Lebanese Forces are pushing for a quick disarmament. Others, like the Amal Movement, say they back the state, but have so far stopped short of supporting full disarmament
- All the while, the outside world is watching too, and the international community is pressing for disarmament.
- To date, more than 529 military structures and weapon caches have been dismantled in southern Lebanon.
- Also, 1,500 additional soldiers have been deployed in southern Lebanon so far, bringing the total to 6,000, and 4,000 more are in the process of being recruited.
Bassil: LF tried to encircle, isolate and eliminate us