On Thursday, Palestinian factions in a refugee camp on the outskirts of handed over weapons to the Lebanese army — the first implementation of an earlier agreement between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. The development was highlighted by US envoy Tom Barrack, who called it a “historic step toward unity and stability.”
In May, Abbas and Aoun had announced that under the authority of the Lebanese government. But not all Palestinian factions, above all the Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah militia, have agreed to abide by this decision.
For decades, UN resolutions have called for the disarmament of , whose military wing is considered a terrorist group by several countries, including the US and members of the European Union. This stipulation was also part of the agreement brokered by the US and France to end the recent fighting between Hezbollah and Israel in November 2024.
Earlier this month, the Lebanese cabinet effectively approved a plan to enforce the state’s monopoly on weapons by the end of the year. However, Hezbollah has remained opposed to its disarmament, stating that it would treat the decision “as if it doesn’t exist.” Yet, Hezbollah has also said the group was “open to dialogue” and to “discussing a national security strategy.”
In July, Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem reaffirmed the Shiite militia’s opposition with harsh words, saying that disarmament primarily serves the interests of the and and exposes Lebanon to a “serious crisis.” If the government seeks confrontation with Hezbollah, he said, “there will be no life in .”
Kassem literally warned of a “civil war,” which prompted Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to state on X and in an Arabic-language newspaper interview that “any threat or intimidation relating to such a war is completely unacceptable.”
Hezbollah’s warning was a traumatic reminder of Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, which resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 people.
Hezbollah fights for ‘political survival’
Hezbollah’s reaction was to be expected, said Merin Abbass, head of the Beirut office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank.
“As nobody knows how many weapons the militia still has, this is their last and only trump card,” he said. “They can use it to try to increase their political influence but ultimately, it’s about the militia’s political survival.”
However, has lost a great deal of strength and influence as a result of last year’s military conflict with Israel. The Israeli army not only severely damaged Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal but also took out its command structure, including leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in an Israeli bombing raid in September 2024.
Hezbollah has also lost international support, especially with the fall of its ally in , the regime, in December. Even Iran, Hezbollah’s main sponsor for decades, is no longer able to back the militia to the same extent due to the closure of the land route through Syria.
Does Iran need to be involved?
The disarmament of Hezbollah is politically difficult but not impossible — at least in principle, said Lebanese political analyst Ronnie Chatah. Speaking with DW, he highlighted successful examples in other countries, such as the IRA in Ireland, the FARC in Colombia and ETA in Spain.
Chatah argued that international talks involving Hezbollah’s main supporter, , would be a likely prerequisite for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
“Even in its handicapped form and its current limited capacity, it remains an Iranian asset,” he said. “I would even say that Iran has taken over the leadership of Hezbollah, and for this reason, Ali Larijani, Iran’s security chief, has just visited Lebanon.”
Israeli threat gives Hezbollah ‘considerable legitimacy’
“From the perspective of most citizens, Lebanon’s territorial integrity remains under threat,” said Abbass. “This is particularly true with regard to Israel, whose army frequently violates the country’s national sovereignty.”
Since the ceasefire in November, Israel has repeatedly the agreement, in addition to carrying out numerous targeted killings, he added.
“Israel also continues to maintain a presence with five positions on Lebanese territory. This, of course, continues to provide Hezbollah with considerable legitimacy,” he said. For its part, Israel has accused Hezbollah of not adhering to the agreements and continuing to plan future attacks.
Lebanese divided on Hezbollah disarmament
The Lebanese population, meanwhile, remains divided on the issue of disarming Hezbollah, although many non-Shiites in particular are critical of its military dominance. One woman, who like other interviewees did not want her name to be published, said she is . Although the Lebanese army also receives military support from abroad, she argued that the Israeli army is many times bigger.
“That’s why I’m against disarming Hezbollah. The regular Lebanese army simply lacks the means to defend the country,” she said.
A Lebanese man told DW that his country needs to focus on other priorities right now. “The country is broke and in bad shape. So disarmament should happen after rebuilding, not before,” he said.
Another Lebanese man referred to the situation in the south of the country, where inhabitants have been under Israeli pressure for decades. “That’s why they feel safer when Hezbollah still has its weapons,” he said. However, he himself is in favor of disarming the militia, admittedly for a reason that also reveals political aversion to the neighbor. “Then Israel will no longer have an excuse for another war,” he told DW.
Hezbollah began striking in support of Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organization by Germany, the European Union, the United States and some Arab states. After a year of skirmishes, the situation escalated in mid-September 2024 into two months of war, including a ground invasion and some 4,000 deaths on the Lebanese side.
Strengthening state institutions would provide ‘legitimacy’
Abbass said the current priority is to at all levels. “A credible sovereignty strategy must begin where Lebanon is weakest: in terms of legitimacy and effectiveness,” he said.
In his view, this includes reforming the political structure toward a secular system; regaining fiscal sovereignty; reducing dependence on foreign financing; and restoring the role of the state as the main provider of public services.
However, as Abbass pointed out, when it comes to the weakened army any reform will likely prove difficult. To this day, the Lebanese army is considered weaker than Hezbollah. “That is why it is important that the forces of the UN observer mission in southern Lebanon,” he said, referring to the current discussion about extending their presence to counter Hezbollah. “The Lebanese army could not fulfill the tasks there on its own. It would be overwhelmed.”
That weakness could prompt Israel to invade southern Lebanon again if it felt its interests were threatened by Hezbollah activities, he said, adding that Hezbollah on the other hand has made it clear that it is not currently prepared to disarm.
DW’s Jennifer Holleis and Sara Hteit in Beirut contributed to this report, which was originally written in German.
The post Lebanon’s Hezbollah rejects disarmament, warns of civil war appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
