Lebanon has a unique opportunity to disarm Hezbollah, which most Lebanese hope their government can seize. They see a chance in President Joseph Aoun’s insistence on monopolizing force in the hands of the state and the call of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government to set a national defense strategy to finally rid Lebanon of the last of its decades-long scourge of militias.
However, Hezbollah was never going to disarm willingly. The group’s arsenal is central to its identity and a major source of Lebanese Shiite support. In his Friday, April 18 speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem sought to dash any hopes of his group demilitarizing. Once again, Qassem insisted that the Lebanese state monopolizing force had no bearing on Hezbollah’s private arsenal, and the group would remain armed and integrated wholesale into Lebanon’s national defense strategy once discussions for such a plan begin.
His full speech is summarized below:
Qassem: The resistance is necessary
Qassem started by justifying the “resistance” and Hezbollah’s private arsenal. Lebanon, weak as it is, needed the resistance to counter Israel’s threats and occupation of its lands, he argued. The situation required mustering “all available means,” including the “Army, the People, and the Resistance,” nodding to Hezbollah’s “golden equation” for defending Lebanon. Hezbollah’s role was to act as an auxiliary to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), “support[ing] and aid[ing] this army, and acting as a launching point to direct popular energy against the Israeli occupation,” Qassem said.
Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory is “inseparable” from its occupation of Palestine, Qassem argued. This is because “Israel is expansionist” and also seeks to conquer Lebanon, he claimed. Therefore, Hezbollah’s creed and sense of Lebanese nationalism require the group to extend this resistance to liberating “occupied Palestine,” he said.
Qassem: Resistance works
Resistance, Qassem argued, works through incremental victories—like Hezbollah’s claimed wins over Israel in 1985, 2000, and 2006. These increments “led to the great victory” in the recent war by “stop[ping] Israel a short distance beyond the Lebanese border and denying it from reaching the Litani or Beirut or achieving any of its goals,” he said. Only the resistance’s “great and promising accomplishments” could have achieved this result or freed Lebanon of Israeli occupation, he argued. Therefore, public discourse should not be focused on Hezbollah’s and Lebanon’s losses and martyrs during any of these clashes but on the group’s accomplishments “despite facing a massive Israeli-America-Global assault, and the Israeli enemy supported by all great powers.”
Qassem argued that Hezbollah, as the victim in the recent war, should not be questioned for being attacked by Israel, but only whether it withstood the onslaught. Answering his own question, Qassem insisted Hezbollah remained standing when the conflict’s dust settled, its endurance alone forcing “Israel to agree to [the November 27 Lebanon-Israel ceasefire] deal.” Therefore, he claimed, “The resistance lived up to the task” and “even set a legendary example which the entire world acknowledges.”
The November 27 ceasefire
Qassem then tried to invert the source of the recent conflict with Israel. He insisted that Israel’s insatiable expansionism, furthered by necessary acts of aggression, was the only reason for continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon since the ceasefire deal (“2700 attacks including killing, wounding, demolishing, destroying”), not Hezbollah’s weapons. It was obvious to everyone, he said, that Israel was now the aggressor despite “Hezbollah fully implementing [its obligations under] the ceasefire.”
Israel, Qassem alleged, seeks to occupy “most of Lebanon, annex it to occupied Palestine, establish settlements on Lebanese land” and, somewhat contradictorily, use it to deposit expelled Palestinians.
Qassem was suggesting that Hezbollah, rather than being the problem, is the solution—hinting that the group’s disarmament would be a national mistake. Expansionist Israel, he said, wants to disarm Lebanon to “neutralize its strength” and more easily control it. “With Lebanon’s strength sapped, Israel can invade whenever it wants and occupy what it wants,” Qassem argued.
As proof, Qassem pointed to the Lebanese state’s inability to stop Israel’s ongoing attacks while Hezbollah held its fire. However, the group would never leave Lebanon weak, he said, and it will “confront Israel and those backing Israel, whatever the outcome.” Israel was violating the ceasefire deal despite Hezbollah, the “resistance,” and the Lebanese state upholding their obligations—and the group, together with the army, the people, and the head of state, would prevent the Israelis from accomplishing any of their goals.
For now, though, Hezbollah was still giving diplomacy a chance, Qassem said. But if it fails, “then we have options,” he threatened. “We fear nothing. Try us and keep on [attacking], continue. You’ll see our decision at the appropriate time,” he said. Qassem stated that the group would only let Israel get away with its actions for a time but added, “No one says we’re remaining patient until [Israel] can accomplish even part of its goals.”
Qassem: Hezbollah’s permanence
Qassem stressed that Hezbollah had transformed from a mere “group” into “a people, an umma”—channeling the organization’s aspirations stated in its foundational 1985 Open Letter—and was therefore undefeatable. “We are the ones who defeat,” he said. As proof, he argued—in an inversion of reality typical of Hezbollah’s propaganda—that Israel’s ongoing attacks were a sign of Israel’s weakness, not his group’s.
“Israel,” Qassem claimed, was merely “pecking at us, killing one person, bulldozing in one village, carrying out limited operations when it can launch a massive action” because the Israelis are calculating every move—they could exhaust Hezbollah’s “wise patience.” His group, he insisted, remained committed to “resistance, liberation, and preventing Israel from achieving its goals,” and its response “could occur today, tomorrow, after a period. But there is absolutely no alternative, and absolutely no surrender.”
Qassem: Lebanon has many problems, but Hezbollah isn’t one of them
Qassem argued that “the resistance’s weapons” were not one of the many problems plaguing Lebanon. Rather than obstructing the country’s political processes, as its opponents claim, the group was “pursuing state-building,” and to that end, helped “elect the president, advance the government [formation process]” and was cooperating with the ceasefire deal and diplomacy.
Hezbollah’s constructive role conclusively demonstrated, Qassem argued, the group’s opponents were now using constitutional justifications to disarm it. “Great. The constitution says the state must monopolize weapons. We agree. But which weapons?” he asked. “Weapons protecting the average citizen, weapons for domestic security,” Qassem answered, adding that this didn’t extend to “the resistance’s weapons, which are solely for confronting the Israeli enemy and not for domestic use.” Qassem’s contrived distinction between “domestic security” and “resistance” weapons echoed a longstanding Lebanese differentiation between “militias”—which Beirut must disarm under the Taif Agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 1701—and “resistance,” which Lebanon argues is lawful and excluded from the ambit of these two instruments.
Qassem insisted that only a minority, disconnected from the State, president, prime minister, and people, were calling for Hezbollah’s disarmament—all of whom know Israel’s occupation, and not the group’s arsenal, is the source of Lebanese woes. Qassem’s inversion was meant to obscure both overwhelming Lebanese opposition to the group and its weapons (except for the Shiites) and that Hezbollah’s October 8, 2023 attack on Israel spurred it to enter Lebanese territory. He brushed off the group’s domestic naysayers, saying their “provocations,” which “serve the Israeli project,” were predicted in Islamic scripture. He said that Hezbollah would ignore them and continue the path of confrontation:
We confront [Israel] through our strong stance, national unity, building the state, the strength of the army, and the readiness of the resistance. We confront the occupation and will continue doing so through all of this. We don’t surrender and won’t surrender. We are not weak … we do not fear America’s or Israel’s or their allies’ threats. We are the people of confrontation.
Qassem: Hezbollah will not disarm
Calls to forcefully disarm Hezbollah “offer Israel a free service,” Qassem argued, because its army “failed to seize even a single weapon [from Hezbollah].” These calls, he said, will also fail to stoke their intended strife and fighting between Hezbollah and the LAF, because the two forces “have a mutual understanding, cooperate, and are in the same trenches against the Israeli enemy.” He also accused Hezbollah’s domestic foes of using disarmament calls to shortcut their capture of the Lebanese state with American backing. While “disarmament seeks to achieve these things,” Qassem argued, the group’s opponents were “biting off more than [they] can chew [lit. “too long for your neck.”]. He continued:
We won’t allow anyone to seize the weapons of Hezbollah or the resistance, because Hezbollah and the resistance are one. The concept of disarmament must be set aside. We won’t allow anyone to disarm the resistance, because these weapons give the resistance backing. … We will confront anyone who attacks the resistance or works toward disarmament—using their words—just as we confronted Israel, whether it is Israel, America, or their lackeys.
Lebanon, he said, must now focus on confronting Israel, warning “anyone against playing this game” of seeking to disarm Hezbollah. Qassem, however, seemed confident that Lebanon’s political climate favored the group, “on the level of the state, army, and political factions,” noting that “no one is talking about forceful disarmament.”
Qassem: Hezbollah has discharged all obligations under the ceasefire deal
Qassem again stressed that the ceasefire deal only applied to Hezbollah’s forces south of the Litani River. “South of the Litani appears five times in the deal,” he emphasized, claiming, “We [Hezbollah] have fulfilled all our obligations, the Lebanese state has fulfilled all its obligations and continues to do so.” Israel, he claimed, had not. Conceding that Resolution 1701 placed mutual obligations on Israel and Lebanon, he nevertheless argued it would be absurd for Beirut to fully discharge its duties despite Jerusalem’s intransigence.
Qassem said the ceasefire deal merely replicates Resolution 1701’s first phase, obligating Israel to fully withdraw from Lebanon and cease its attacks. Only afterward should Lebanon “discuss what we want to do with 1701’s other clauses.”
Hezbollah’s view on a national defense strategy
While UN Resolution 1701’s clauses obligate Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, Qassem refused to concede this interpretation. He insisted Hezbollah would not cooperate with 1701’s implementation prior to Israel “fully discharging” its ceasefire obligations—and then, only:
[Via] dialogue along fixed nationalist principles: First, protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty, liberating its land, and ending all forms of Israeli aggression. Second, using the resistance and its weapons as part of a defense strategy that achieves liberation and defense. Third, rejecting any step that would weaken Lebanon or lead it to surrender to the Israeli enemy.
The third principle echoes Hezbollah officials‘ recent rejections of disarming or disbanding, arguing the group and its arsenal are a source of strength for Lebanon and must be preserved.
Hezbollah, Qassem said, was not awaiting President Aoun starting bilateral discussions regarding a “comprehensive national defense strategy,” which he said the group supports. So far, however, Hezbollah has only had some “positive” exchanges “regarding implementing the [ceasefire] deal south of the Litani” with the president and the LAF. Nevertheless, the group refused to enter such discussions “under the pressure of occupation or aggression,” Qassem said. Those discussions must await Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and post-war reconstruction of Shiite areas:
Let me say this in clear Arabic. Does anyone expect us to discuss a defense strategy while planes fly over our heads, the occupation south is occupied, and America is doing its utmost to ensure this discussion occurs under pressure and based on its diktat? This is not dialogue; this is surrender. Let Israel withdraw first and end its aggression, including the [presence] of its aircraft in [Lebanese] airspace—this will be an important step for us to enter discussions regarding a defense strategy.
Qassem said Hezbollah would not discuss the details of a national defense strategy or its vision in the media. However, he took for granted that, once concluded, the strategy would leave Hezbollah armed and intact:
And a defense strategy, like we said, has nothing to do with seizing weapons or surrendering weapons. No, it stems from the president’s intention to discuss the diplomatic, economic, and military facets of a comprehensive defense strategy. During this discussion, we’ll determine the resistance’s place in the national defense strategy—its role, how to empower Lebanon, if we will offer suggestions or actions regarding strengthening Lebanon, strengthening the Lebanese army, and how to benefit from the resistance and its weapons. This is the defense strategy, Lebanon’s strategy, and its strength—and we won’t be blackmailed [into concessions] by tying it to reconstruction.
Qassem: Reconstruction must be a priority
Qassem said President Aoun “thankfully understands” that setting a national defense strategy can neither be rushed nor squeezed into a timetable. Therefore, the president and the government must focus on their commitment—made in their inaugural speech and cabinet policy statement, respectively—to jumpstart postwar reconstruction and place it at the top of the governmental agenda. This effort, he insisted, was not charity but a duty—omitting that Hezbollah would be the greatest benefactor of such a move if it is not conditioned on the group’s disarmament.
Qassem insisted again that Hezbollah had discharged all its ceasefire deal obligations. Once Israel reciprocated and the Lebanese state began reconstruction, defensive strategy discussions could begin. For now, he called on Lebanon to leverage all its influence with the United States to pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations. However, if Beirut found it necessary to expel Israel by force, “then we are ready, as the resistance alongside the Lebanese Army, to fight on the border no matter the cost. Try it, and you’ll see: Israel will leave.” Hezbollah, he said, was merely awaiting Lebanon’s orders.
Hezbollah’s general orientation
Qassem ended by addressing several other pressing matters. Domestically, he said, Hezbollah rejects any American custodianship over Lebanon. “America is our Great Satan that nurtures the cancerous tumor Israel, which must be excised from Lebanon and the entire region,” he said, responding obliquely to Morgan Ortagus’s recent description of Hezbollah and its necessary fate. Qassem also expressed the group’s eagerness to participate in May’s municipal elections in cooperation with the Amal Party and Shiite clans and praised the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Lebanon and its leadership for supporting “the resistance and its strategic project which serves Lebanon.” Qassem also called for prosecuting anyone who verbally attacks the council or its leadership.
Regionally, Qassem said Hezbollah remains committed to Palestine. He called on others to “do something! Act, with words, chants, pressure, economically, politically” (noticeably omitting using force) to end Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and counter “the daily violations of Al Aqsa by the Jews.” He also expressed tempered hopes for US-Iran negotiations to succeed and saluted the Houthis in Yemen for “confronting America directly.”
