A tough test for the Lebanese; Why the idea of disarming Hezbollah will not lead anywhere?

Afghan Voice Agency (AVA): After holding a relatively long meeting in Beirut, the Lebanese government decided to task the army with presenting a plan for disarming Hezbollah by the end of this year. This decision was supported by Nawaf Salam, the 53rd Prime Minister of Lebanon. Hezbollah, which has endured a difficult year following the assassination of its Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and some key figures, has now, under the leadership of Sheikh Naim Qassem, declared its strong opposition to the plan. The group’s supporters even took to the streets of Beirut the night before the cabinet meeting, but the protests have not yet affected the government’s decision, and officials are still insisting on implementing the disarmament part of the US-brokered ceasefire agreement with Israel last year.

 

What happened at the cabinet meeting?

According to Lebanese media reports, Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament and an ally of Hezbollah, asked Nawaf Salam and Joseph Aoun to present a more comprehensive plan that, instead of using the phrase “disarming Hezbollah,” would satisfy both internal and external parties and prevent further Israeli attacks without directly mentioning the issue. Berri’s proposal commits Lebanon to developing a national defense strategy and maintaining a ceasefire with Israel, without promising to fully hand over Hezbollah’s weapons.

 

During Tuesday’s meeting, ministers close to Hezbollah and the Amal movement walked out in protest at the government’s decisions. However, the move did not affect Nawaf Salam’s decision to move forward with the disarmament plan. In addition to the prime minister, other political rivals to Hezbollah have also stressed the need for the group to disarm.

 

What are Lebanon’s demands?

 

While the United States expects the Lebanese government to announce a specific timetable for Hezbollah’s disarmament, Beirut has also made demands. In a speech on Army Day, Joseph Aoun declared that the monopoly on weapons in the hands of the army and security forces is essential to restore global trust in Lebanon.

 

US envoy's ideas for Lebanon's future

US envoy Tom Barak visited Lebanon in July and, in a meeting with Nawaf Salam and Joseph Aoun, called Hezbollah a "terrorist organization" and stressed that Washington would not negotiate with the group. He claimed that an agreement had been reached between the Lebanese government leaders on Hezbollah's disarmament and that the group had agreed to the gradual handover of heavy weapons. Barak also said that the Lebanese army should carry out this mission, but the main problem was the non-payment of salaries to the army forces.

 

He stressed that the army should talk to Hezbollah in a soft language about the mechanism for collecting weapons in order to prevent a civil war, since these weapons are stored in parking lots, basements and houses. According to Barak, the reason for the Lebanese government's delay in dealing with Hezbollah's weapons is the fear of a civil war.

 

Hezbollah's strong reaction

Hezbollah opposed the idea of disarmament from the beginning. Supporters of the group on the streets of Lebanon supported the right to defend their country, arguing that disarmament meant being defenseless against Israeli attacks. On the eve of the cabinet meeting, Hezbollah released a video in which Sheikh Naim Qassem said: “They are asking us to hand over our weapons, but our decision is firm and our message is clear: resistance for the liberation of Lebanon, defending its sovereignty, stopping the Zionist regime’s aggression, and placing weapons within the framework of the national defense strategy. Resistance is the only way.”

 

Before the street protests, Hezbollah had announced that it was in talks with the government to reach a common defense strategy. However, Joseph Aoun’s statements that Hezbollah forces would not be integrated into the army and that he opposed the Popular Mobilization Forces’ experience in Lebanon showed that the government did not welcome Hezbollah’s defense ideas.

 

A Tough Test for the Lebanese/Why the Idea of Disarming Hezbollah Will Not Go Anywhere?

 

Pressure from the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia on Beirut has led the government to insist on its decision and link Hezbollah’s disarmament to Lebanon’s national security. Critics, however, believe that this move, at a time when Israel is constantly attacking Lebanon, means leaving it defenseless against an enemy that controls parts of Lebanese territory and can invade the country whenever it wants.

 

According to Khabar Online, Hezbollah, in a statement after the cabinet meeting, considered the decision a big mistake resulting from foreign dictates and described it as serving Israeli interests. The group announced that it would treat the decision of the Nawaf Salam government as if it had never been made. The Amal movement also has a similar position and believes that talking about disarming the resistance is meaningless as long as Israel does not stop its aggression. Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, like Sheikh Naim Qassem, does not consider disarmament to be in Lebanon’s interest.