Amid nearly daily Israeli breaches of the ceasefire agreement that went into effect on 27 November 2024, Hizbullah Secretary General Naim Qassem vowed that the Lebanese resistance organisation would not relinquish its weapons at present.
In a fiery televised address on Friday, 18 April, he said Hizbullah was Lebanon’s bulwark against Israeli aggression and territorial ambitions. However, he stressed that Hizbullah was willing to engage in closed-door consultations with the state, political parties and other stakeholders, under the auspices of the Lebanese president, to discuss a defence strategy that integrates the resistance, instead of relinquishing arms in exchange for nothing.
Made within a week of the US and Iran entering into indirect negotiations in Oman, Qassem’s address suggests that the Hizbullah arms issue had surfaced at the negotiating table. Some have speculated that it is being used as a tactic to pressure Israel into withdrawing from Southern Lebanon.
In his speech, Qassem stated that Hizbullah could not be expected to disarm until Israel fully withdraws, Southern Lebanon and the Beqaa are rebuilt, and the residents are able to safely return to their homes and resume normal life. He also stressed that the defence strategy formulated by concerned Lebanese parties should be a purely national one, free of the pressures of a continued Israeli occupation. Such a strategy, he said, would allow the state to demonstrate that it is meeting its commitments to protect its people and rebuild what the Israeli aggression has destroyed.
“Resistance weapons are a source of strength for Lebanon. They are a guarantee of its security and sovereignty. To abandon them would leave Lebanon exposed, vulnerable, and prey to Israel’s endless expansionist ambitions,” the Hizbullah leader declared. He pointed out that, while Hizbullah had withdrawn all its forces south of the Litani River, in line with its commitment to the Lebanese state under the ceasefire agreement, Israel still occupied five strategic hills overlooking a vast swathe of Lebanese territory stretching from the Mediterranean coast to the Syrian border.
Qassem warned that the ambitions of the Israeli occupation extended beyond those strategic hills. “It aims to annex large parts of the south for the purpose of resettling Palestinians it plans to expel from Gaza, and possibly from the West Bank,” he said. He pointed to the Syrian experience where the destruction of the Syrian Army has enabled Israel to carry out repeated aggressions, incursions and seizures of territory with impunity.
Hizbullah and the resistance continue to enjoy broad grassroots support in Lebanon. As Qassem noted, over a million people attended the funerals of former Hizbullah secretary generals Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safi Al-Din. This huge turnout was not just a farewell to the two revered leaders, but also a renewed pledge to remain true to the spirit of the resistance.
The Hizbullah secretary general’s speech was to some extent addressed to the movement’s base, appealing to the spirit of steadfastness in the face of heavy sacrifices. In addition to Nasrallah and Safi Al-Din, last year’s Israeli aggression killed most of Hizbullah’s senior military leaders and hundreds of field commanders. Hizbullah has not released a full tally of its casualties, but Israeli estimates place them in the thousands. The civilian toll was much higher: at least 4,040 dead and over 16,630 wounded by the morning the ceasefire went into effect. Since then, Israel has committed more than 1,500 breaches of the ceasefire agreement, claiming over 100 more civilian lives and injuring over 300. Within hours of Qassem’s speech, Israel intensified its bombardment of villages in the Lebanese south and the Beqaa Valley. It is as though Israel wanted to corroborate Qassem’s points with a practical demonstration of its ability to violate Lebanese sovereignty at will.
In his speech, Qassem refrained from any direct or indirect criticism of President Joseph Aoun or other Lebanese politicians who have called for Hizbullah’s disarmament. Recalling the president’s inaugural address, in which he pledged to launch a dialogue on a comprehensive defence strategy, Qassem stated that Hizbullah is in full agreement with the vision shared by the Lebanese president and the army command for fortifying the country against Israeli aggression. Hizbullah therefore accepts, in principle, that the state should hold a monopoly on arms. However, given the nature and persistence of the external threat, Qassem argued that this principle applies to internal security, whereas the matter of arms for national defence should be addressed within the framework of the anticipated comprehensive defence strategy.
President Aoun outlined several ideas for “monopolising arms under the state’s authority” in an interview aired during his recent visit to Qatar. He suggested that Hizbullah members could be given retraining programmes to prepare them for integration into the Lebanese Army, as occurred with members of militias that were absorbed into the military and security forces after the end of the Civil War. Hizbullah views such proposals as premature as long as Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory. It also cautions that any attempt to disarm Hizbullah forcibly would jeopardise Lebanon’s civil peace and social cohesion.
Aoun, in his interview, revealed that he had told the Americans that if they pressured Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, the Lebanese state would ensure that Hizbullah remained remote from the line of confrontation. This aligns with Qassem’s position, which calls on the Lebanese state to press the Americans to compel Israel to withdraw so that discussions of disarming Hizbullah can begin.
According to reports from Lebanon, the Lebanese Army is already deployed in the south and the Beqaa where it has seized and destroyed Hizbullah ammunition depots, tunnels, and military infrastructure with no opposition. The army has also carried out raids on sites prepared for rocket launches, seizing projectiles and arresting those involved.
US Deputy Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus reposted Qassem’s statements in a tweet accompanied by a sarcastic “yawn,” implying boredom with the Lebanese resistance movement’s discourse. Her X-baiting also targeted the prominent Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, who argued that Washington’s demand for Hizbullah’s immediate disarmament was unrealistic. In response to this, she scoffed, “Crack is whack, Walid.” While in Beirut in February, she dictated a “red line” to Lebanese lawmakers regarding Hizbullah’s involvement in government and simultaneously praised Israel, after months of Israeli bombardment levelled dozens of Lebanese villages.
Her approach has further emboldened Israel to renege on its commitments to the ceasefire agreement. After delaying its withdrawal from Lebanon by the end of the initial 60 days of the ceasefire, Israel announced its intention to hold the strategic territory in Southern Lebanon indefinitely. Israel also continues its violations of other terms of the agreement, frequently bombarding the south, demolishing civilian structures, building cement walls across Lebanese villages, and expanding its incursions into Lebanese airspace and territory.
As usual, Israel has also begun to press for the complete disarmament of Hizbullah, rather than just its withdrawal to the Litani, counting on the Trump administration’s unconditional support.
The ceasefire agreement established a five-party military mechanism—led by the US and including France, Lebanon, Israel, and UNIFIL—to address violations. Not only has this mechanism failed to curb Israeli aggression, many believe it is serving as a vehicle for facilitating US-French sponsored meetings between Lebanese and Israeli officials, not to discuss the technical details of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, but rather to foster de facto normalisation.
The ceasefire agreement did not specify how the Lebanese Army would deploy in the south, but the army has stated that it has moved into the locations vacated by Israeli forces in order to prevent clashes. Nevertheless, when thousands of Lebanese residents bypassed the army to return to their homes, the Israeli occupation forces opened fire indiscriminately, killing more than 22 civilians and wounding dozens.
Lebanon is caught in a vice between domestic exigencies and international powers insisting on eliminating Hizbullah as a military force before releasing desperately needed economic and reconstruction aid and assistance into the country. But Hizbullah, too, is in a delicate situation. While conscious of Israeli-US intent to make Lebanon toothless, it has sustained severe losses and is simultaneously aware of domestic socioeconomic needs. It is therefore compelled to recalibrate its political and social role to bring it in line with the more hopeful climate that has emerged in Lebanon since the appointment of a reformist president and prime minister and a non-partisan technocratic cabinet.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 24 April, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: